No Foot leadership

Just thinking of a few possible PODs in post-war British politics. Was reading a biog of Michael Foot the other day and his entry into the 1980 Labour leadership race was quite unexpected. He was '67 and looked older' and Peter Shore was anticipated to be the candidate of the left.

What if Foot decided not to run? Does that hand the leadership to Healey? Shore never looked a convincing leader and Benn wouldn't have had enough support among MPs.

The interesting thing is if modern political preferences were in play David Owen, the glamorous young ex-Foreign Secretary, would have been the hot favourite. At the time he wasn't even a contender.
 
Yes, Healey defeats Shore on the second ballot by a decent margin. Foot probably maintains his position as deputy leader for a few years. The centrist-left leadership team hold Labour together as a fully functioning coalition and there is no SDP. The 1983 election is somewhat closer, though Thatcher is still victorious. Healey leads the party in 1987 as well, and narrows Thatcher's majority enough that she calls an election in 1990. New Labour leader Neil Kinnock manages to defeat her with a narrow majority in that election.
 
Healey was a very popular figure and a damn good chancellor in my opinion. Had Healey have been party leader, I'd imagine Labour would be better united or at least the in-fighting neutralised by the lack of an SDP breakaway. Labour appears much more electable and doesn't suffer from the split vote. Perhaps a hung parliament in 1983 or a massively reduced Conservative majority holding on by its fingertips as Thatcher and Howe's policies were hugely unpopular. As they say 'its the economy stupid' and I bet the Falklands would be forgotten in the minds of the electorate.

ASB but perhaps a Heathite, wet revolt could follow, which would be highly amusing, either that or Heseltine eyes his chance and tries to depose Thatcher early.

Another POD could be what if the treasury got the figures right and Britain never went to the IMF.
 
Healey leads the party in 1987 as well, and narrows Thatcher's majority enough that she calls an election in 1990. New Labour leader Neil Kinnock manages to defeat her with a narrow majority in that election.

Why would a tight majority force Thatcher to go to the polls three years into a parliament? If anything it will make her cling on for as a long as possible like Callaghan in '79 or Major in '97.

Healey was a very popular figure and a damn good chancellor in my opinion. Had Healey have been party leader, I'd imagine Labour would be better united or at least the in-fighting neutralised by the lack of an SDP breakaway. Labour appears much more electable and doesn't suffer from the split vote. Perhaps a hung parliament in 1983 or a massively reduced Conservative majority holding on by its fingertips as Thatcher and Howe's policies were hugely unpopular. As they say 'its the economy stupid' and I bet the Falklands would be forgotten in the minds of the electorate.

Labour isn't going to get a hung parliament in '83, in the absence of the Falklands Thatcher will hold on until '84 when the Thatcherite reforms clearly were working and even if a more sane Labour can close the gap the '79 landslide gave Thatcher a big cushion. You only get an '83 election when Thatcher is sure she's going to win, otherwise it's '84.

ASB but perhaps a Heathite, wet revolt could follow, which would be highly amusing, either that or Heseltine eyes his chance and tries to depose Thatcher early.

ASB the Heathites had lost control of the associations and that means Thatchers ideological children will inherit the party in the long run and Heseltine just didn't have numbers and support in the party. That said he could take over after she retires in defeat after losing an election.
 
Just thinking of a few possible PODs in post-war British politics. Was reading a biog of Michael Foot the other day and his entry into the 1980 Labour leadership race was quite unexpected. He was '67 and looked older' and Peter Shore was anticipated to be the candidate of the left.

What if Foot decided not to run? Does that hand the leadership to Healey? Shore never looked a convincing leader and Benn wouldn't have had enough support among MPs.

The interesting thing is if modern political preferences were in play David Owen, the glamorous young ex-Foreign Secretary, would have been the hot favourite. At the time he wasn't even a contender.

Foot not standing gives the leadership to Healey. That won't prevent the far Left from trying to take over the party and there would still be infighting. I think the SDP still happens although less MPs and party members defect than OTL.

The 1983 election is still a large Tory victory but I would guess the SDP/Lib takes less Labour voters and perhaps instead of the OTL 209 seats and 28% of the vote Labour gets about 31%of the vote and wins 225-230 seats. I don't see Healey lasting long after what would still be a historic defeat. With Healey as leader I don't think Kinnock would have shined so much and maybe Hattersley wins the leadership with Healey backing. The SDP is absorbed by the Liberals sometime around 1985 and the Tories still win in 1987 but Labour benefits from a smaller centre party vote and gets about 260 seats. Perhaps Hattersley steps down in 1988 and maybe you get John Smith as leader and he wins in '92.
 
Is there anyway of getting Kinnock out of the picture? Perhaps the Gang of Four go by their original plan and form just a pressure group inside the party, could there perhaps be an Owen leadership, or a compromise candidate?
 
I think with Healey as leader there would still be plenty of infighting - Tony Benn and the left would probably allege Healey was an illegitimate leader as he was elected only by the MPs. The conference would probably still vote for the electoral college (although it's possible that Healey is able to keep the union percentage on even parity with the PLP and individual members) and this would lead to a Benn leadership challenge in late 1981 (as opposed to his deputy leadership challenge in the OTL).

The votes of Kinnock and a few others were critical in the OTL as they abstained giving the win to Healey. Perhaps if Healey as leader has marginalised and annoyed Kinnock the latter and his associates back Benn.
Also, at least according to wikipedia on the 1981 contest, 'ironically it transpired that if the unions had had an equal share to the PLP and the membership then Healey's narrow majority would have been wiped out and the more left-wing Benn won the contest'.

So paradoxically a Healey victory in 1980 actually leads to a more left-wing Labour which performs even worse in 1983 than Foot did.

Owen, Williams etc still form the SDP but not until 1982, one year later than in the original timeline, having given Healey a benefit of the doubt they were not prepared to give to Benn.
 
If Healey wins, Benn will challenge him the moment democratisation is introduced for leadership elections. Benn don't want the deputy leadership IOTL, but he knew he couldn't challenge a fellow man of the left for leader. With an ideological opposite in the leadership, Benn will challenge and probably still lose. Ironically the knock on effect of this is probably a bigger SDP split and a worse 1983 result as Labour are perceived as even more inward looking.
 
Top