Labour 1983 election victory

What conditions would be necessary for the Labour Party to win the 1983 general election? Who would lead the party, if not Michael Foot? Would the Falklands War have to had been averted, either through diplomacy or by it simply never occurring in the first place? How different would Labour policies have to be from the 1983 manifesto, so as not to scare off the middle class? How would Thatcher and/or the Conservatives become so unpopular that a turn to Labour be necessary?
 
Prevent the Gang of Four treachery and the Falklands Conflict and Foot can probably secure a majority.
 
If Denis Healey is elected, Owen and Rodgers would not have left. Owen clung to staying in the party until Healey lost and then prepared to make the necessary breaks. Rodgers attempted to stay on harder, but he judged Foot an incompetent leader and made up his mind to go then. Shirley Williams was not an MP at this time, but she also made up her mind to leave after meetings with Foot proved unsatisfactory. So, Healey has to win in order for the Gang of Three to stay. Roy Jenkins had already allowed his membership to lapse.

Healey wins not Foot, no SDP, Falklands War fails or never happens. Healey could get a slim majority.

That's the only way Labour could win in 1983.
 

GarethC

Donor
Did Labour have unilateral disarmament in its manifesto for 83? If so, that probably needs dropping.
 
Last edited:
Did Labour have unlateral disarmament in its manifesto for 83? If so, that probably needs dropping.

Labour believes in effective defence through collective security but rejects the present emphasis on nuclear weapons. Britain and her allies should have sufficient military strength to discourage external aggression and to defend themselves should they be attacked. Labour's commitment is to establish a non-nuclear defence policy for this country. This means the rejection of any fresh nuclear bases or weapons on British soil or in British waters, and the removal of all existing nuclear bases and weapons, thus enabling us to make a direct contribution to an eventually much wider nuclear-free zone in Europe. However, all this cannot be done at once, and the way we do it must be designed to assist in the task to which we are also committed - securing nuclear disarmament agreements with other countries and maintaining co operation with our allies.

It's a call for unilateral disarmament, although more sensible than it's usually portrayed.
 
I know the total votes for the SDP and Liberals outnumbered those for the Conservatives with over 50% of the total going to the Alliance and Labour combined. No SDP, perhaps Labour would get a slim majority, but i'd bank on perhaps a hung parliament and a repeat of 1974. Thatcher's economic policies were really unpopular with most, the Falklands arguably brought the support she had in 1979 back, no Falklands means no return to base.
 

Cook

Banned
The Conservatives went into that election with a 100 seat margin and increased their majority by nearly 60 seats, just getting rid of the Falklands War is not going to lose them that election; the Labour Party was simply out of touch with the electorate at the time.
 
What conditions would be necessary for the Labour Party to win the 1983 general election? Who would lead the party, if not Michael Foot? Would the Falklands War have to had been averted, either through diplomacy or by it simply never occurring in the first place? How different would Labour policies have to be from the 1983 manifesto, so as not to scare off the middle class? How would Thatcher and/or the Conservatives become so unpopular that a turn to Labour be necessary?

No Prime Minister was more passionately hated by the majority of the British people than Margaret Thatcher.

Even with a divided and disorganized opposition and a victory in the Falklands the Tories still only got 42.4% of the vote (less than 1979).

The important thing to avoid would be the split in the Labour Party in 1980/81. The election of Denis Healey would be the best way to avoid that.

Second of course is no Falklands War. Many senior Tories were thinking of removing Thatcher before the 1982 Party conference if things didn't turn around soon. And they wouldn't have.

Assuming she wasn't removed the British economy recovers a little in 1982/83 but unemployment is still rising (and would continue until September 1986) and she dare not challenge the unions head on.

She may put off an election until 1984 in the hope lower inflation and a recovering economy would save her. It probably wouldn't.

A 1983 election against a fairly united Labour Party and no Falklands war would lead to a Tory defeat. The amount of hatred was too strong and without a victory in war she would have little to show the electorate except lower inflation than 1979. This would be at the price of over 3 million unemployed and a few actors and pop stars staying on in the UK because of the tax cuts for the rich.
 
No Falklands war.

Owen gets to be SDP leader and manages to break the alliance, say demanding the expulsion of Liberal uniliaterlists.

I think if it were clear the tories were losing the election would not be until 1984
 
This would be at the price of over 3 million unemployed
Which was actually an after-effect of the previous Labour government's policies: Unemployment was already at 1 million and rising when Maggie was elected, and fixing the actual causes of that problem before they made the situation even worse (as they did) just wasn't possible in a single term.

the tax cuts for the rich.
Cuts that there is documented proof actually resulted in "the rich" paying a significantly higher proportion of the total tax collected, because -- as the Conservatives' leadership had generally believed beforehand would be the case -- letting people keep a higher share of what they earned gave them more incentive to work and less incentive to bother with tax-avoidance schemes.
 
Which was actually an after-effect of the previous Labour government's policies: Unemployment was already at 1 million and rising when Maggie was elected, and fixing the actual causes of that problem before they made the situation even worse (as they did) just wasn't possible in a single term.

Cuts that there is documented proof actually resulted in "the rich" paying a significantly higher proportion of the total tax collected, because -- as the Conservatives' leadership had generally believed beforehand would be the case -- letting people keep a higher share of what they earned gave them more incentive to work and less incentive to bother with tax-avoidance schemes.

Unemployment was actually falling when Labour left office and continued until March 1980.

The second point about increasing tax collection may be true but irrelevant in the ballot box in 1983. People wouldn't have cared if tax cuts meant people kept a greater share of what they earned. Especially when millions had lost all earnings in what most people viewed as a failed ecnomic experiment.

What all but the most right wing Tories would have noticed would have been mass redundancies and the destruction of Britain's industrial base, 3 million unemployed with no sign of an improvement and a country heading towards a Latin American banana republic run by Americans (Thatcher was seen by many as America's lap dog). Only the Falklands victory changed the psychology.

Being wise after the event is easy but there was little sign of Thatcher and her government surviving much longer until the victory in the Falklands.
 
POD..

My first thought is you probably need a Labour victory in a GE in the autumn of 1978 as the main POD.
 
Top