What if: Dennis Healey, not Michael Foot, had been elected Labour leader in 1980

At that time the leader of the Labour Party was elected only by Labour MPs. In the first ballot, announced on 4 November 1980, there were 112 votes for Healey, 83 for Foot, 38 for John Silkin and 32 for Peter Shore. Silkin and Shore dropped out, declaring their support for Foot. The second ballot result, announced on 10 November, was 139 votes for Foot and 129 votes for Healey.

So what if at least six Labour MPs who had voted for Foot, voted for Healey? Would a Healey leadership have prevented the formation of the Social Democratic Party [SDP]? Although I think the Conservatives would still have won the 1983 general election, it would have probably been with a considerably smaller majority. I expect Healey would become Prime Minister after a Labour victory in the 1987 general election.

Without the SDP the Liberal Party would continue but most likely with less electoral success than the Liberal Democrats.

What are your ideas for developments in British politics from 11 November 1980 to the present day if Healey was elected Labour leader?
 
I'm not sure a Healey victory would have aborted the creation of the SDP. People forget that it wasn't Michael Foot's victory in the leadership election which was the trigger for the creation of the SDP, it was the Wembley Conference of the new year which did that. I can't see how Healey's victory would have aborted the decisions reached at Wembley. Add in Healey's pugilistic and prickly personal tendencies, and personally-speaking I suspect you would still get the formation of the SDP.

I'm not sure Labour would have done substantially better at the 1983 election simply by the fact of Healey's leadership. The internal warfare is still going to be there, it's still going to be pretty severe, and it's going to be straight down the middle leadership versus party bloodbathing. And to be frank, I don't think Denis Healey is the man with sufficient cross-party appeal to adequately reform the Labour Party, certainly not in that low, 1981-1983 period anyway.

I wouldn't expect, therefore, a great deal to be done to turn the party around in two years. Perhaps Healey can save Labour the humiliation of 1983 simply by the fact of his leadership, but I wouldn't expect miracles - a smaller Thatcher result, but still a pretty good one.

I have no idea whether Healey would have clung on after 1983, on that question you're really getting into considerations of individual psychology. I can see it, but considering a lot of the knives will have been sharpened by then, more likely than not IMO we see Healey not serving out the full term as leader. A 'liberated' Healey during the Miners Strike would result in quite a few differences from OTL, I'd wager though. If Healey does cling on for another election that could result in quite a big divergence in terms of whoever takes over afterwards - I can't see Neil Kinnock being ram-roded through by the unions and the then left-wing consistuency activists in the same way he was in '83 by '87 or '88. Might we see an earlier John Smith leadership?

Probably on balance Labour is in sufficiently better shape it can bring about a hung parliament at least in 1992, but that's pretty speculative.
 
Last edited:
Williams and Rodgers would likely never have left the Labour Party had Healey won. Neither would Owen. Jenkins had already left Labour and he either would have stayed a political neutral or joined the Liberal Party with his personal following.

Here's another thought. Say Healey lost as in real life, but rather than pledging a meek loyalty to Foot, say he voiced defiance and united several right wing MPs who did not join the SDP such as Hattersley and Smith. He almost certainly would have had the support of Rodgers and Owen in Parliament as well. If Healey had threatened to lead a protracted resistance to Foot's leadership, then perhaps the SDP would never have come into being, or if it had, it would have been born with several more MPs behind it.
 
Top