Michael Foot wins the 1976 Labour leadership election

MrHola

Banned
So what if Michael Foot won the Labour leadership election of 1976. He won the first ballot and the second ballot was only narrowly won by Jim Callaghan. Let’s say Tony Benn decides not to run against Foot, the result is that Benn’s votes goes to him. Now we have a Prime Minister Michael Foot. What would be his policies? Would the Tories still win the following general elections? Any consequences for Europe?
 
Even assuming that all of Benn's votes went to Foot, Foot would still lack a majority on the first round; you'd probably just end up with the same result.
 
Labour MPs used the exhaustive ballot, which means the bottom candidat HAS to drop out. I do not recall the exact figures but assum that most of Benn's vote went to Foot.

For Foot to win he would need some of the "civilized right" vote which (rightly) suspected Callaghan of authoritarian tendencies.
 
If Foot were to somehow be PM in the late 70s, it is unlikely he would be any more successful than his abysmal tenure as leader of the Labour Party. Although his OTL election was as a conciliator, he would have been no more able to stop the Bennite faction of the Labour party from running amok than Jim Callaghan. At this time, there were several Labour MPs who were heavily influenced or even led by Moscow and were a constant source of embarassment to the party. One of the KGB defectors, Oleg (surname begins with G) even stated that Foot was one of their men in Britain.

Foot also had an extramarital affair in the early 70s which could come back and bite him in the ass with a higher public profile. I don't think that there would be much overall change to the Labour Party if Foot becomes PM in 1976. Callaghan would most likely be Labour Leader in the early 80s and I think he could have easily seen off Tony Benn and Militant. I think that he could prevent the Gang of Four forming the SDP. He would have been an old man by the time of the 1983 election and if he were to lose, a Labour Leadership challenge might well not have seen victory by Neil Kinnock but rather by David Owen or Shirley Williams - had they remained inside the party.
 
One potential POD would be to have Callaghan die instead of Crosland, and a bit earlier. (Say 1975, or better yet, early 1976.) By the time Wilson steps down, that would leave the right/centre divided between Crosland, (Not prominent enough) Jenkins (Splitter - aloof) and Healey. (Arrogant, lacking in broad support) That could potentially just allow Foot to nose it, perhaps even on the first round.

I agree with Ljofa that Foot as PM would have been a minor disaster, both for the county and for Labour; whether that would have created significant differences from OTL, I’m not sure. One thing is for certain, though: if Foot becomes PM, then he would obviously never have become deputy leader at the end of 1976. (Assuming Ted Short still steps down) In OTL, that was a straight fight between Foot and Shirley Williams; here it would likely be between Williams and Tony Benn, which I imagine Williams would win easily. That could have interesting consequences.​

Who knows - depending on what happens, we might get the SDP two or three years earlier than we did historically.​
 
Last edited:
Methinks a Foot premiership could, potentially benefit Labour. Think about it. Should he lead Labour to a big defeat in 76-79 then he would have to resign. A call for change would occur and a more palatable figure, possibly Williams, Healey or Callaghan would have got the leadership after the defeat. This would have helped Labour greatly during Thatchers first term.
 
That is dependent, though, on Foot being able to keep the party together in the meanwhile. Even if there is no formal split, then things might be sufficiently advanced by the time of the election that the party has already effectively been polarised. A Foot premiership means a whole different tone on the Unions, Nukes, Europe, etc in the three years he would be in office. If the election is close, then there's not even an assurance that Foot would resign immediately.

You might even see - it's unlikely, but having just exited from a Foot Cabinet, in which he would doubtless do well, just about plausible - what happened historically, but with Foot's role replaced with Benn.

In which case, Labour is dooooomed.
 
Last edited:
Concur - a technocrat like Benn was entirely the wrong character for the 1970s with economic contraction and with OPEC flexing its muscles. Benn would have been better off in the 1950s with the right economic conditions for Britain to have taken advantage of his philosophies - Britain could have led the microchip/minaturisation revolution rather than Japan.

The other question to ask about a Foot premiership is that would he have been able to defeat the Militant Faction in 1976 over the appointment of a National Youth Organiser or would Militant's influence have spread unchecked throughout the Rank and File?
 
Bump!

This is a very interesting ATL. I think overall it would be very good for the Labour Party in the long-term, as the left having been allowed to have one of its own in power would have been a proven disaster. This would mean that they were completely discredited by the likely debacles of the late 1970's and the right would have taken over again in the 1980's leading them back to power sooner.

What is interesting is what the level of popularity and public perception of a Foot Labour government would be. There may not be the Winter of Discontent for instance.
 
That is dependent, though, on Foot being able to keep the party together in the meanwhile. Even if there is no formal split, then things might be sufficiently advanced by the time of the election that the party has already effectively been polarised. A Foot premiership means a whole different tone on the Unions, Nukes, Europe, etc in the three years he would be in office.

Another thing to consider is that in OTL, towards the end of Callaghan's premiership, Labour only remained in power due to support from the Liberal's. I don't think that Foot would be able to put together an equivalent of the Lib-Lab pact, so the election is likely to be 12-18 months earlier than in OTL. In that time, I don't think that Foot would be able to gather enough parliamentary support to do anything really radical. For comparison, see the problems that Callaghan had trying to introduce Devolution.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Another thing to consider is that in OTL, towards the end of Callaghan's premiership, Labour only remained in power due to support from the Liberal's. I don't think that Foot would be able to put together an equivalent of the Lib-Lab pact, so the election is likely to be 12-18 months earlier than in OTL. In that time, I don't think that Foot would be able to gather enough parliamentary support to do anything really radical. For comparison, see the problems that Callaghan had trying to introduce Devolution.

Cheers,
Nigel.


True. In one of my own threads 'British Siege Economy 1970's' which is an ATL of a siege economy in the UK (the Labour Left's proposal around that time), it was commented by other posters that this would never have got off the ground, due to outright opposition by the Labour Right. One wonders though how this would affect intra-party relations after an election defeat. In OTL the left felt that Callaghan and the right-dominated leadership had betrayed them; in this ATL they would consider them as dissidents who got in the way of the Foot left-dominated leadership. Would this lead to greater or lesser intra-party turmoil after an election loss?
 
Top