WI: Heath/Thorpe Coalition in Feb 1974

  1. What if Edward Heath agreed to Jeremy Thorpe's conditions and a coalition government is formed?​
  2. What would of happened if Thorpe's electoral reforms (STV) were introduced?​
  3. How would the Thorpe Affair affect the coalition?​
  4. Would the Labour party result to infighting? (or could they unite under someone like Callaghan?)​
  5. Could Scottish and Welsh Devolution happen?​
  6. What would happen to Thatcher?​
  7. What would happen to David Steel? (does the alliance with the SDP form in this timeline?)​

Please discuss.
search
 
  1. What if Edward Heath agreed to Jeremy Thorpe's conditions and a coalition government is formed?​
  2. What would of happened if Thorpe's electoral reforms (STV) were introduced?​
  3. How would the Thorpe Affair affect the coalition?​
  4. Would the Labour party result to infighting? (or could they unite under someone like Callaghan?)​
  5. Could Scottish and Welsh Devolution happen?​
  6. What would happen to Thatcher?​
  7. What would happen to David Steel? (does the alliance with the SDP form in this timeline?)​

Please discuss.
search

I'll take them in order.

(1) Thorpe himself coveted this outcome desperately, but the real change needs to be made with Heath, not Thorpe. Heath did not want it because he found Thorpe both politically and personally suspect (Heath, like Wilson, also knew full well what was in Thorpe's MI5 file but plenty of people then had... fulsome MI5 files of different description, the issue with Thorpe was that he seemed vain and self-destructive enough even then -- his career had already nearly crashed and burned for purely party-political reasons before his wife's tragic death and the February election breathed some life into it -- that some of that stuff would surface eventually.) IOTL Heath chose deliberately to make a coalition agreement unacceptable to the Liberals' constituency base so that he could avoid working with Thorpe. Change Heath's heart, or gut, and you can change a lot here but those bits of anatomy and their owner (Heath) are among the most opaque and casually spiteful in British politics.

(2) Both Heath and Wilson were likely to poison-pill an STV vote unless the "big brother" in the coalition (Tories or Labour) was so unpopular that catering to public opinion demanded it. Turkeys really don't vote for Christmas. Devolution is actually likelier, especially from a Conservative-Liberal coalition where the Tories can then gerrymander reductions in Scots and Welsh representation at Westminster to cut back Labour's base of seats.

(3) China Syndrome time. In government, Thorpe flails about briefly trying to deny and resist whatever it is that goes down (or blows up) then collapses under his own deflated ego. David Steel is probably pockmarked with shrapnel for not managing Thorpe better or getting him out of the way before the avalanche of skeletons from Thorpe's closet drowned everybody, and Ted Heath finds yet another way to look bad to his own party. Opportunistic minor parties join Labour, wronged constituency Liberal MPs who feel betrayed by Thorpe pissing away their first real power in decades, and the occasional machiavellian "Dry" all to vote for no confidence and it's back to the polls. Also sayonara Mr. Heath.

(4) Labour can always resort to infighting :cool: The interesting question is, if Wilson smelled blood around Thorpe, would he really step down because he'd lost in February or would he have to be pushed? The election that followed would be more hard-fought than IOTL, definitely. There's more at stake in some ways -- not just an inheritance from a sitting PM but a chance to set your stamp on things. One of the most interesting questions is whether Foot will run to keep the Labour Left from fractalizing (even more than the left-right split the real danger for Labour's solidity was, barring the presence of Foot, having the Left implode in shards.) Callaghan is still the likeliest winner because Woy has shot his bolt by that point but there are lots of interesting compromise candidates out there including dear old Ed Short, the actual deputy leader at the time.

(5) Definitely. As I say, even the Tories might go that route for machiavellian reasons (buying off the Liberals without STV and gerrymandering seat reductions in Labour heartlands because of the new devolved assemblies.) Labour especially under Callaghan was actually more resistant to the idea and did so because they had few political options other than to become more unpopular. My own .02 is that devolution is a good deal more likely (it still has to go to a vote, either in Commons or with the public Common Market-style) than STV no matter where Jeremy Thorpe coalesces :)

(6) If CHIEF KEITH still not only shoots himself in the foot but more or less blows off both legs at the hips as he did IOTL, she's still the princess-over-the-water as long as Heath lasts. We like to say she was not the most likely outcome but when you look back on the list of candidates she starts to look damned near inevitable. Willlie Whitelaw is still the prohibitive favorite but like a lot of prohibitive favorites he depends entirely on conventional wisdom which makes him desperately fragile in practice -- all the non-Thatcherites need to line up behind him or he's done. Reggie Maudling had too many skeletons (which multiplied during the Seventies and showed up in newspapers) and too many enemies to truly make it in. Joseph had as I say recused himself through verbal stupidity much as Powell was River-Tibered by this point. Sir Geoffrey Howe is still a dead sheep. The likes of Norman Tebbit don't have the MPs in the lobby even if they have the bottle for it. Airey Neave knows too many people think he's past it and would rather play kingmaker for the right as he did IOTL than go there himself. Thorneycroft has too much track record, rather than Thatcher's relatively-little. It took Neave's genuinely great skills as a parliamentarian and worker (and counter) of the lobby, but Thatcher was the right "Dry" at the right time if you were going to take Heath's scalp.

(7) Depends on how an "alternate Thorpe Affair" goes down. At best Liberals flee to him because they feel there's no other good option and public judgment is tepid at best. At worst he gets blamed for looking the other way or enabling Thorpe (if we escalate to an airing of Big Cyril's crimes Steel really looks set to crash and burn.) He also faces the icy disdain of All The Tory Grandees for being a rotten stableboy to the Liberals' prize steed (Thorpe) and screwing up the coalition, giving Labour an easy "We're Not The Guys Who Did Bad Things" in with the electorate. None of this is excellent news for David Steel. Then it's does Grimond make a comeback as Liberals flee to the familiar under stress, or does a new face crop up.

There you go. My .02, nothing more.
 
The Thorpe Affair might never come to light both due to butterflies and I believe the jouranlists who first got on to the story were inadvertently led there by Harold Wilson, who had hired them when he was becoming paranoid about Mountbatten-related shenanigans.

Electoral Reform is a big ask, maybe Heath agrees to a referendum? A Tory PM backing PR would cause murder with large sections of the party. Or maybe Heath goes for a 'big idea' and tries to use the Liberals to swing the Conservatives leftwards, in an alliance of sorts. Cut to Ted Heath losing his deposit as the Christian Democrat candidate for Plymouth North in the 1980 General Election.
 
When the next election comes along, probably in 1978/79, who would win (I think labour as the economic crisis by the end of the 70's would probably force the coalition out.) So we have two possible elections one with FPTP (referendum fails) or STV (referendum succeeds) would the voting system actually change the outcome in 78/79?
 
When the next election comes along, probably in 1978/79, who would win (I think labour as the economic crisis by the end of the 70's would probably force the coalition out.) So we have two possible elections one with FPTP (referendum fails) or STV (referendum succeeds) would the voting system actually change the outcome in 78/79?

I think there's an ironic situation here where, because Liberal desire for STV and Slick Jezza's ability to self-destruct are both in play, where one possible outcome is the Libs find a way to hold Heath to ransom for STV but then their support collapses because of Thorpe's scandal. In that case, the folks who could really make a breakthrough are the SNP, who might just keep Labour from a majority and force Labour to deal with them in order to govern. So there are actually a variety of potential outcomes in that putative GE. And that's in the less-than-likely instance STV gets through Parliament.
 
When the next election comes along, probably in 1978/79, who would win (I think labour as the economic crisis by the end of the 70's would probably force the coalition out.) So we have two possible elections one with FPTP (referendum fails) or STV (referendum succeeds) would the voting system actually change the outcome in 78/79?
A hung parliament would be significantly more likely, and even if the Liberals take a significant hit to their share of the popular vote, they would probably see substantial gains that would mean they play a role in the formation of the next government. You have to remember that Wilson has likely retired by 78/79, so who the Labour leader is would play a big role. Callaghan would win if he stood, but I'm not sure if he would have taken it on in opposition, given his age. If not, it could be someone from the right who is more divisive, like Healy, or (less likely) Crosland or Jenkins. Foot hadn't held ministerial office at this point but he could be a left wing candidate.

If any of those win, one side of the party is going to be thoroughly disillusioned, so you might see the emergence of a breakaway party from one or both sides. It would be smaller than the OTL SDP, for the right because a Heath-Thorpe coalition is fairly attractive to centrists already, and for the left because it is already ascendant within the party, and it is far easier to take control of Labour than start something new. But maybe a breakaway from either side of Labour could secure double digit support at the next election and position itself as the third largest party.
 
But with FPTP I think the next two elections would go:

1979: James Callaghan
1984: James Callaghan (even with his age I believe Callaghan would stay as he would realise the party needs him to survive until a good successor is picked.)
1989: A conservative candidate.
 
If the coalition lasts til 79 the liberal party dies, the labour candidate wins, is re-elected in 83, and wins 87 off the back of North Sea oil
 
In 83/84 who do you think the labour candidate is? As I said it will still be Callaghan. In 87/88 Callaghan would be way too old. (Callaghan could stay on until 87 but resign immediately, or soon after the election.) A labour leadership election in 1987/88 would most probably include Tony Benn, John Smith (if the election is in 87.) Healy as well. David Owen might run as ITTL the SDP would not of formed.
 
Last edited:
In 83/84 who do you think the labour candidate is? As I said it will still be Callaghan. In 87/88 Callaghan would be way too old. (Callaghan could stay on until 87 but resign immediately, or soon after the election.) A labour leadership election in 1987/88 would most probably include Tony Benn, John Smith (if the election is in 87.) Healy as well.
I don't know whether Callaghan would cling on all the way till 84, especially if the electoral college isn't in place or gives more weight to MPs than OTL. Remember, the demands for the mass membership to elect the leader only really began after the loss in 79, and they might be weaker ITTL without Labour in government. If the situation is more favourable for a right wing candidate to succeed, Callaghan could groom a successor. Before 1984 it would be either Healy or Hattersley, after probably John Smith. Tony Benn would be very unlikely to win even if leadership elections were carried out on the same rules as OTL, though maybe a soft left candidate like Kinnock would stand a good chance, depending on whether he had advanced to cabinet level.
 
I believe that Healey would become the more likely successor and if Callaghan resigns during his 2nd term I could see Healey pulling in a win in for Labour in 87/88. But who would succeed him in 1992? (as in OTL he retired that year.)
 
Would Callaghan still have that plan if he would of only got in in 79 in TTL. But If he resigns in 1980 then could Peter Shore and Michael Foot be considered candidates. No John Smith (too early), Probably not Tony Benn. Could someone like Roy Jenkins run for leader as the SDP would not of split from labour.
 
But would he still plan that if he just would of been elected a year earlier. However if he resigns anyway then Peter Shore, Michael Foot would also be included in the election. (and some of the 'gang of four' as they would not of split apart in this timeline.)
 
Would Callaghan still have that plan if he would of only got in in 79 in TTL. But If he resigns in 1980 then could Peter Shore and Michael Foot be considered candidates. No John Smith (too early), Probably not Tony Benn. Could someone like Roy Jenkins run for leader as the SDP would not of split from labour.
With Shore as leader I could see him pushing an EEC referendum since there wouldn’t be a 75 ref. He could point to economic weakness since 73 as an argument to leave and I could see it winning
 
I believe that Healey would become the more likely successor and if Callaghan resigns during his 2nd term I could see Healey pulling in a win in for Labour in 87/88. But who would succeed him in 1992? (as in OTL he retired that year.)
Smith would be the most likely candidate to my mind, but honestly we're well over a decade past the PoD at this point. Callaghan or Healey could have given prominence to people who never came anywhere near the leader IOTL.
But as I said would Callaghan still resign if he became PM on a year before in this timeline.
Probably not. Most likely he'd either not run in the first place, or retire toward the end of his first term in office. He wouldn't go onto the mid eighties.
With Shore as leader I could see him pushing an EEC referendum since there wouldn’t be a 75 ref. He could point to economic weakness since 73 as an argument to leave and I could see it winning
Does Labour abandon the referendum if it loses though? Unless a rabid europhile like Jenkins takes over then the party leader would still see it as a convenient mechanism to paper over party divisions. Plus it was current party policy, and the 1974-79 parliament would probably see the radicalised grassroots on the march within Labour, so the moderates would most likely be faced with limiting the damage, and wouldn't have much success in taking party policy to the right.
 
Does Labour abandon the referendum if it loses though? Unless a rabid europhile like Jenkins takes over then the party leader would still see it as a convenient mechanism to paper over party divisions. Plus it was current party policy, and the 1974-79 parliament would probably see the radicalised grassroots on the march within Labour, so the moderates would most likely be faced with limiting the damage, and wouldn't have much success in taking party policy to the right.
No Heath and the liberals would just not have a referendum because they are in power. Most center left leaders would support a referendum but would be neutral and not officially campaign for leave but shore would campaign hard
 
Top