The power of the many, not the few.

Not sure that's an attack that's going to get much currency in 1988 - for most people Section 28 was relatively uncontroversial at that stage. Indeed it was used in those days as much a tool for embarrassing Labour than stopping education about homosexuality. An attack of 'homophobia' is probably more likely to be laughed at than taken seriously.

I'm also interested with regards to the 1987 election - you've got Thatcher doing better by about 15 seats or so. Does this mean that the disaster that was the 1987 for the Scottish Tories does not happen in the same form (seat totals for the party fell from 20 to 10).

Also it's important to remember that Margaret Thatcher voted FOR the legalisation of homosexuality between consenting adults in 1967... would a homophobic do that?
 
Also it's important to remember that Margaret Thatcher voted FOR the legalisation of homosexuality between consenting adults in 1967... would a homophobic do that?
Ah. If so, she would probably point that out...

I'm just wondering if there's an out-of-date term for homophobia which was used twenty years ago, in the same way some people - Enoch Powell, for instance - used 'racialist' rather than racist.
 
Not sure that's an attack that's going to get much currency in 1988 - for most people Section 28 was relatively uncontroversial at that stage. Indeed it was used in those days as much a tool for embarrassing Labour than stopping education about homosexuality. An attack of 'homophobia' is probably more likely to be laughed at than taken seriously.

I know what you mean re.society at the time as it was less accepted, the reason I put more detail than was needed on Section 28 however was not to do with public support, it was to emphasise that Thatchers Government was as IOTL moving more and more towards social Conservatism now that they were slowing down the speed of privatisations. A more determined Labour front-bench could have defeated the Government in PMQs, and gained more opposition in the country, basically on a level of the idiocy of the amendment, which is homophic, however. I actually meant good revews in broadsheets in orginal post. Have altered it now.
Lord Douglas said:
I'm also interested with regards to the 1987 election - you've got Thatcher doing better by about 15 seats or so. Does this mean that the disaster that was the 1987 for the Scottish Tories does not happen in the same form (seat totals for the party fell from 20 to 10).
21 MPs in the '83 election. They are down to 16, which is a better result than OTL, but still not great. As it is, the Tories have made gains elsewhere.
Basileus Giorgios said:
Also it's important to remember that Margaret Thatcher voted FOR the legalisation of homosexuality between consenting adults in 1967... would a homophobic do that?
She did, however, support section 28. Regardless of how she voted in 1967, this bill means she could be painted as such. I mean, "shall not intentionally promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

Is that not homophobic?
 
Last edited:
She did, however, support section 28. Regardless of how she voted in 1967, this bill means she could be painted as such. I mean, "shall not intentionally promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

Is that not homophobic?

It is, but Margaret Thatcher is a creature of the 1930's, and coming from a strong Christian background I would say she was less homophobic than would otherwise be expected. As I am a strong Thatcherite though I suspect we won't agree on this, so I'll just sit back and enjoy the timeline!
 
The point surely is though that an attack of 'homophobia' isn't going to be taken seriously - Section 28 was something for embarrassing Labour as much as anything else. The Labour Leader will be anxious to avoid it, if only to avoid the tabloids painting him as a sympathiser with the far left Labour-controlled councils. People didn't view the amendment negatively, to the extent that it was covered in the press it was supported. Remember that even in 2000 opinion polls showed over 50% of the population in support of retaining Section 28. I don't think people then would have seen much illogical or stupid about it.

It's surely akin to someone calling Churchill a 'racist' in the 40s or 50s for suggesting that the British people ("this island race") were superior to all others.
 
Labour was about half-way through Militant at this stage; it had been shorn of much of it's impact, but Militant was still in the party. (IIRC) You could say Militant had passed it's peak at this point.

Same thing about Tony Benn, incidentally. There's no serious prospect of the party going hard-left at this stage.

Hattersley, though, won't go full-tilt on modernisation like Kinnock did. With Mandelson also probably out of the picture, (and much more discredited than he was from '87 in OTL, which he was badly hurt by anyway) it'll be interesting to see who takes over Campaign and Comms. That whole clique around the 87-92 Kinnock - Patricia Hewitt, Charles Clarke, etc - will have to find some other way to progress.

Interesting to see who becomes deputy leader. Meacher, presumably.

In regards to Hattersley not modernising the party, wasn't Hattersley from the right of the party whereas Kinnock was from the soft left? Of course after 1997 Hattersley was viewed to the left of New Labour, but I'm not sure about his ideological positions in the 1980's.
 
In regards to Hattersley not modernising the party, wasn't Hattersley from the right of the party whereas Kinnock was from the soft left? Of course after 1997 Hattersley was viewed to the left of New Labour, but I'm not sure about his ideological positions in the 1980's.
That's hardly difficult :rolleyes:
 
The point surely is though that an attack of 'homophobia' isn't going to be taken seriously - Section 28 was something for embarrassing Labour as much as anything else. The Labour Leader will be anxious to avoid it, if only to avoid the tabloids painting him as a sympathiser with the far left Labour-controlled councils. People didn't view the amendment negatively, to the extent that it was covered in the press it was supported. Remember that even in 2000 opinion polls showed over 50% of the population in support of retaining Section 28. I don't think people then would have seen much illogical or stupid about it.

It's surely akin to someone calling Churchill a 'racist' in the 40s or 50s for suggesting that the British people ("this island race") were superior to all others.

Why are you so touchy over this one subject?

Is the text of the amendment homophobic? Yes. Could Labour have won the argument in the Commons with a stronger, less embarassed line of argument? IMO Yes. Had they done so, could they have won over the non-Murdoch broadsheets? Yes. Is it socially conservative? Yes.

You state opinion polls, but the polls were given against a general misconception over what the amendment was.

As far as I can remember it was all about schools attempting to turn children gay which was patent nonsence. A concerted argument against the amendment may well have turned the polls to an extent, although there would have been mass divisions over this.

Such would have required a less embarrassed Labour leadership than OTL, taking on the Tory right. In addition to this, more of the luvvies would be jumping on to the Labour bandwagon, so it would help Labour in the long run.

As I said, the reason I mentioned it was as an example of social conservatism creeping more and more into Thatchers government, as opposed to her government concentrating on more economic matters.

Also, your comparison with Churchills island race rhetoric is mad, unless Churchill passed a bill of which I am unware stating that no aspects of any non-British culture be taught in British schools. It is possible to accept other national cultures whilst taking pride in your own, indeed British culture has taken aspects from many other nations and moulded them together.
The amendment said:
"shall not intentionally promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
 
Last edited:
Those Giddy Student Days

In OTL like many of my mates in this era I got up at the ungodly hour of 3 am (well to be fair we didn't bother going to bed) and got the coach down from Durham to London for an NUS sponsored march. Baker's Great Education Reform Act and Clause 28 were prime examples.

Did we think Clause 28 was all about prohibiting pro-gay policies? No. To be fair most of us were oppossed to it as a typically small-minded Tory policy.

Were we all gay or pro-gay? Certainly not. It struck us as being a tad unfair.
 
Coming on monday, 1990 for the UK and a general outlook of 1987-1990 for Europe and the rest of the world.

I never intended for Section 28 to dominate the thread, so will attempt to badger on. I have to say though, albiet in a more moderate tone, I agree with Conveyancer that as a straight man I think it looks unfair, and if I were gay I would have been angry about it(alas I was too busy at school and playing football to care).

Maggies fate still stands in the balance.........;)
 
Just a quick filler update of a secret meeting in January 1990 between the leadership of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems.

“The Deal”

Roy Hattersley and Paddy Ashdown sat opposite each other, with the leading lights of both the new Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party present.

Their purpose was clear; it was to thrash out a secret deal between the parties to end the Conservatives time in Government by agreeing upon which seats each party would divert focus from in the next general election.

Hattersley had been talked into the deal by John Smith, Gus Macdonald and his young protégés Blair and Brown, and despite his initial reluctance to deal with the likes of Shirley Williams, had come around to seeing the need for an agreement, and ending Margaret Thatchers time in office.

On the Lib Dem side, Paddy Ashdown had been enthusiastic about talks with Labour as the quickest way of increasing the numbers of Lib Dems in Westminster and at the same time giving them a possible place in government. Also present were Shirley Williams, Alan Beith and Ming Campbell.

Along these lines the Lib Dems argued that should a scenario occur whereby Labour should win but require a coalition, the Lib Dems would want any agreement to be formal, quite unlike the Lib-Lab pact of the seventies, and that they would require certain policy commitments and a few places in the cabinet. Hopeful of gaining an overall majority with the help of the deal, Hattersley agreed, although any policy or issues over position would be discussed only in the occasion of a coalition occurring.

The talks went into the early hours, after which it was agreed that Labour would although running candidates, give the Lib Dems a free hand in certain constituencies against the Tories and vice versa. To do so would help both sides win more seats.

Hopes on both sides increased that this was the first nail in the coffin of the government of Margaret Thatcher. It was agreed that the meeting would remain secret however.
 
Well I'm sorry if I'm being a bother to you, but I'm a stickler for reality. Section 28 was popular in the 80s. What's more, many people thought it was needed. In the early 80s there was a great moral outcry over the perceived radical leanings of several 'loony left' London boroughs with regard to homosexuality. Books (though they'd probably be seen as quite fine now) were in school libraries that some thought explicitly promoted homosexuality to children, also you had the usual tabloid stuff about schools hiring gay equality consellors. Section 28 in the eyes of many was to specifically tackle those issues. Neil Kinnock IRL didn't make play of it because he wanted to avoid being tagged with the left wing councils he was seeking to tackle. Also because Section 28 was popular with a lot of Labour voters.

With regards to the broadsheets, limited play there. The Guardian opposed it. I'm not sure about the Times but the Telegraph certainly supported it. Saying that 'a stronger case could have been made' doesn't cut the mustard because opposition to the clause was galvanised by other bodies - they did make a strong case against it, but it didn't register because people agreed with the amendment.

Yes, the amendment is homophobic. But by today's standards, most Britons weren't exactly accepting of homosexuality in the 80s. If Hattersley makes play of it then he will be associated in the tabloid press (and possibly in the public mind) with the 'loony left'. Therefore it's an issue of strategy as much as anything else.

If you don't want to get bogged down, fine, I apologise for raising the issue, but 80s attitudes to homosexuality are quite a long way removed from today. In my view there is little possibility for Hattersley to score a goal on this. The comparison to Churchill is quite apt as it's an example of differing attitudes in differing periods - I said about Churchill saying the British race was 'superior' to others. The amendment was accepted by the government precisely because they knew it would play well amongst their voters - if they thought there was the potential for embarrassment, they wouldn't have accepted it.

With regards to the rest...I wonder if there might be some difficulty on the pact? Certainly for a lot of older Labour MPs it might have rankled to be lined up with the successors of the 'traitors' in the SDP, indeed, in 1997 to a certain extent this attitude still existed (amongst Prescott and the like).
 
Last edited:
Edit: Sorry, I really like your TL's, Fletcher, and I probably shouldn't be so critical!

The point surely is though that an attack of 'homophobia' isn't going to be taken seriously

I agree - and as you say, a big point here is that local government was seen as (justifiably in many senses) a very bad issue for Labour in the 80's, so they generally avoided kicking up much of a fuss on these issues, or at least did not do so until they were implemented and public opinion on the issue crystalised; in consequence, the Tories got a relatively smooth ride in the early stages of things like the Poll Tax.

Kicking up a big fuss on Section 28 would win Hattersely a lot of applause on the liberal/left of the party, but it would all too easily tie into a 'Loony Left Councils' narrative for the Tories to exploit. That may be 'worth it' for internal party-political reasons, but it wouldn't win Labour votes.

With regards to the rest...I wonder if there might be some difficulty on the pact?

Agreed - I am also sceptical that Labour would start these kinds of negotiations so soon after the demise of the SDP, and especially under 'old right' figures like Hattersley and Smith, who were never more than lukewarm on this kind of thing - when there were talks about probable coalitions etc in the run up to the '92 election, it never really got beyond the 'back of a taxi' stage.

I think there is a shade too much of the New Labour period being anachronistically applied here. The Lib Dems were not even polling significantly after the merger to warrant this kind of thing from a purely opportunistic perspective really anyway. There was a lot of expectation that the Lib Dems might even just die off before the next election in the 1987-1990 period.

Certainly, if this gets out to the wider party, Hattersley is buggered. Withdrawing full support for Labour candidates in preference to the almost moribund, not to mention 'traitorous' Lib Dems? Probable - no, delete - resigning issue if it gets out. Christ, not even Blair went this far at the height of his 'consultation' phase. The party just wouldn't buy it.

If there was a rapprochment with the Lib Dems - which I'm not totally hostile to as a concept - then it would be very tentative, very informal, reasonably low-level, and very short-term at this stage.

Incidentally, if you want to do a really interesting divergence in this period regarding the Lib Dems, then I'd somehow have the SDP remnant win the 1989 Richmond by-election....

In regards to Hattersley not modernising the party, wasn't Hattersley from the right of the party whereas Kinnock was from the soft left?

Yes, that is quite true, which makes their later development so ironic - perhaps I should clarify. Hattersley would still press for modernisation - expulsions of militant etc - it just wouldn't be the proto-New Labour, Peter Mandelson-style all-power-to-the-leader modernisation which we saw under Kinnock and which was only interrupted historically by John Smith's leadership.
 
Last edited:
I dont doubt for one moment that Section 28 was popular amongst large swathes of the population. The only real mention of it in my timeline is the following quote.
In the Commons, Hattersley defeated the Prime Minister in PMQs over the bill, portraying her as homophobic, and not trusting teachers. He never got a good review in the Sun and the tabloids, but the majority of the broadsheets agreed.
In the Commons, I dont think it is untrealistic for such an argument to win, bearing in mind this is not an argument with the general public. Furthermore, such an argument would probably win over the Guardian, the Independent and in Scotland, the Herald. The Daily Mirror would have been there out of the tabloids. The traditional Tory sheets would never have turned for Hattersley.

Whilst strong opposition in itself would not win support, and I accept this, it would bring a lot of the celebrities who did IOTL come over to Labour from Steven Fry and Ian McKellan to Emma Thompson(basically a lot of the nations actors). Once the hue and cry over the bill had calmed down, it would help Labour in future endorsements, which would be worth a couple of points at the next election.

As I have said a few times, the reason I included the bill was to show how the Government was begining to move from economic policies to more social conservative policies.

As for the Lib-Lab deal, which is the first big change in this timeline, I got the idea from Paddy Ashdowns diaries, which I was reading recently. From not long after he became leader, thoughts of a Lib-Lab deal were to the fore and were mentioned quite a bit from then until the '92 election. Kinnock courted him, but never took the plunge. Perhaps I should have done another couple of fillers in which I mention the earlier calls etc.

Hattersley was indeed cold to the likes of Shirley Williams, who betrayed the party in the early '80s by setting up the SDP, and the importance of the deal remaining private goes without saying, and I also agree should it get out into the public domain, Roy Hattersley would be up shit creek. That being said, I think he could have been convinced.

All that being said, I think the benefits to the deal outweigh the negatives. I suppose it is more audacious than Blair attempted, but it would give a clear run for Labour against the Tories in many consituencies. As such it would give him an excellent chance at winning office. Remember, officially he would not be withdrawing support from certain MPs.
 
Last edited:
It is, but Margaret Thatcher is a creature of the 1930's, and coming from a strong Christian background I would say she was less homophobic than would otherwise be expected. As I am a strong Thatcherite though I suspect we won't agree on this, so I'll just sit back and enjoy the timeline!

Don't put yourself down like that, theres no need to degrade yourself to such a slug-like level. :)


Regardless, you people should stop arguing over silly little things, and appreciate the great quirks in this Timeline. Brain Clough actually gets to be England manager! CLOUGHIE! CLOUGHIE!
And now for some of his genius:
"I wouldn't say I was the best manager in the business. But I was in the top one."
"If God had wanted us to play football in the clouds, he'd have put grass up there."
"We talk about it for 20 minutes and then we decide I was right."


Oh please mister! Please make him go into politics! I don't care if it's ASB! Pwease!
 
Don't put yourself down like that, theres no need to degrade yourself to such a slug-like level. :)
:D

Regardless, you people should stop arguing over silly little things, and appreciate the great quirks in this Timeline. Brain Clough actually gets to be England manager! CLOUGHIE! CLOUGHIE!
It's football = a game/sport = ultimately makes no difference to the lives of almost everyone in the world. So what if there's a different England manager?
And now for some of his genius:
"I wouldn't say I was the best manager in the business. But I was in the top one."
"If God had wanted us to play football in the clouds, he'd have put grass up there."
"We talk about it for 20 minutes and then we decide I was right."

Oh please mister! Please make him go into politics! I don't care if it's ASB! Pwease!
Why? He sounds scary! On the other hand, Blair believed pretty much in the first and third ones, and he, of course, never got anywhere... :rolleyes:
 
It's football = a game/sport = ultimately makes no difference to the lives of almost everyone in the world. So what if there's a different England manager?
It makes a difference to me. :p
And Cloughie should always have been England manager. It was semi-serious anyway.

Why? He sounds scary! On the other hand, Blair believed pretty much in the first and third ones, and he, of course, never got anywhere... :rolleyes:

He was just such a character, I can imagine him being Mayor of London like all the other big personalities - Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone.
 
He was just such a character, I can imagine him being Mayor of London like all the other big personalities - Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone.
Thats very true. Brian Clough was the Boris Johnson of the football world.:D
Oh please mister! Please make him go into politics! I don't care if it's ASB! Pwease!
A seat in the Lords after he retires as England boss?:D

Naw, he wont go into politics, but I will bring football back up more often. Only reason I dropped it was I thought no one was interested!
 
Top