Labour in the 1970s After a Conservative Victory in 1964?

The UK general election of 1964 was an incredibly close run affair with as Mark Bunny showing in his thread that a switch of only roughly 3,400 votes in 9 marginal constituencies would of swapped our timeline's result around giving the Conservatives rather than Labour a majority of 5 seats, or that a switch of about 8,500 votes in 20 marginals would have given them a majority of 17 seats. We've had a few threads on a Douglas-Home led Conservative victory in 1964, Blackadder Mk II's The Crowned Prime Minister being the foremost example, but they generally seem to stop at the 1969 general election or after a brief epilogue.

What I'm more interested in was how it would affect the Labour Party - losing in 1964 but then winning in 1969, by that point they were pretty much guaranteed, and also probably in 1974 albeit likely with a reduced majority - and the country. Wilson would probably survive since he'd only been leader for roughly a year although there would bound to be some grumbling, however he also wouldn't have the salve of being in government and able to hand out appointments to help deal with internal relations. Governing for most of the decade would also be something of a poisoned chalice if our timeline's 1970s is anything to go by.

Would Labour have been able to do enough of a deal with the power unions so as to avoid the Three-Day Week? If the Conservatives managed to defer our timeline's 1967 devaluation that could be a rather awkward welcoming present, alternatively if they devalued it takes a bit of their reputation for economic management. IIRC the Conservatives were leaning towards industrial relations legislation which even though likely to be mild compared to what we saw in the 1980s would still be anathema to the TUC. Would no doubt see them pressuring Labour to repeal it and legislate to overturn the judgement in Rookes v Banard, and however sceptical Wilson might have been about the unions at times I think he would have to go along. In Place of Strife is dead even before it starts. A large issue in light of recent events would be Labour's attitude to British membership of the EEC. I'm sure that there a hundred and one other things I'm not thinking of as well.
 

RyanF

Banned
I agree Wilson probably won't face any serious challenges during the life of that parliament. This early into his leadership the left of the Party were still largely convinced "he's one of us" and the right in the pragmatic mind of "Harold is a man we can do business with", I can't see that he would do much in Opposition that would come to change that. However, I can see some half-arsed challenge coming from George Brown or some backbencher that is finished before it starts launched for no other reason other than to satisfy the challengers ego.

I can't see that much of a shift in Labour policy following a 1964 defeat, there won't be the same introspection or in-fighting that we've seen after other defeats. There will be a lot of disappointment but the close result will soon give way to a "one final push" mentality. The differences mentioned in your first paragraph are so small that we may even end up with Labour winning the popular vote but the Conservatives the most seats - I wonder if we might see the arguments for electoral reform gain more traction amongst Labour MPs.

On the subject of industrial relations, Labour will be in a hell of a bind if the Tories introduce some moderate form of industrial relations legislation only for Labour to then remove it once in office and we get the sort of nonsense we saw during OTL 1970s. Wilson might be canny enough to alter or remove some of the more offensive clauses to the TUC but keep the broad meaning in tact, but there's a lot of maybe in there.

Charles De Gaulle will say "non" no matter who from the UK is applying for membership, so if Douglas-Home or his successor tries it in 1964-69 you might see Labour's anti-EEC element grow more intransigent and their pro-EEC counterparts start to grow ambivalent about it. Again a lot depends on what happens in those intervening five years.

If we go into 1969 with an exhausted Conservative government after 18 years in office (sounds so familiar for some reason) with who is almost an Interwar caricature of a Prime Minister at the height of the swinging sixties, with the embarrassment of an EEC rejection, industrial disruption from their Industrial Relations Bill (no matter what the content there is likely to be some), coupled with the stigma of having devalued the pound or facing the economic consequences of not having devalued it (boom finally giving way to bust), not to mention perhaps supporting the US in the Vietnam War more than the Labour government did OTL (perhaps as far as boots on the ground) then the stars might be in alignment to make their results in 1997 look like 1983 in comparison. A lot of what Labour does then is really dependent on what was down by the Conservatives in the government before them.
 
Top