after a change to a more moderate Labour leadership. Then it's quite possible the radicals take control of the party after the election and proceed to enter the 1987 elections with something akin to OTL's "Longest Suicide Note" by blaming their defeat on lack of ideological purity or whatever buzzwords they re-phrase lack of ideological purity in public.a Tory landslide, just not quite as large of a one.
If they do cap losses at 11 or less, than Gaitskill's 1959 Election would still be Labour's worst post WWII performance; and if it's only a little worse than that, the prospects for Labour winning the 1987 race, at least on paper (and not taking leadership or platform into account) should look considerably more winnable, no?Ultimately, although Labour would still do better than OTL, the best they could hope for would probably be only very minor gains of about a dozen over 1979, or more likely a net loss of a similar number of seats.
Of course that's also a possibility, and given it's Labour it may even be an inevitability. If the Suicide Note and subsequent Curbstomping still happens, but in 1987 instead of 1983, that could well mean that Tory dominance lasts even longer, no? I wonder what that means for Thatcher...More likely, though, is that Kinnock or someone else from the soft left faction is able to beat Benn. The different circumstances from OTL might mean some kind of shift to the left, but maybe not as far as 1983- unilateral disarmament, EEC withdrawal, and renationalisation of privatised utilities would all likely become party policy. That would probably mean that 1987 is a defeat on the same lines as 1983, either involving very small gains or minor losses.
I guess no SDP, Jenkins Liberal, smaller majority in 1983, Benn reelected as MP but never leader
I agree that a leadership change alone would not be enough to prevent a comfortable Tory victory in 1983. You'd probably need to at least prevent the Falklands from happening if you wanted to change the result. Even then, Labour infighting is obviously still going to be an issue. If a right winger were in charge, Benn might even and try and challenge for the leadership, rather than deputy, and its possible he could even win. At the same time, having someone more moderate than Foot would probably persuade the Gang of Three to remain, but Jenkins had decided from fairly early on that he would found a new centre party, and we'd probably still see that happen in that situation (although it maybe a different kind of party to the SDP), taking a few Jenkinsite MPs with him. Ultimately, although Labour would still do better than OTL, the best they could hope for would probably be only very minor gains of about a dozen over 1979, or more likely a net loss of a similar number of seats.
So whoever beats Foot is likely to be moved along shortly after the election. And of course, with the right having just led Labour to two landslide defeats, any contest to replace them favours a candidate from the left. Plus a better 1983 result probably means that Benn has kept his seat and can now run for the leadership. It could be that no Foot would just mean an even more extreme leadership in 1983-87, with an even more extreme version of the suicide note, and another SDP style breakaway.
More likely, though, is that Kinnock or someone else from the soft left faction is able to beat Benn. The different circumstances from OTL might mean some kind of shift to the left, but maybe not as far as 1983- unilateral disarmament, EEC withdrawal, and renationalisation of privatised utilities would all likely become party policy. That would probably mean that 1987 is a defeat on the same lines as 1983, either involving very small gains or minor losses. The margins involved make it difficult to say whether they could still win in 1992, or even say for sure who the leaders of the major parties would be.
Maybe at the time it would appear that way. But the Tories would still have a comfortable majority and a booming economy in 1987, so in practice Labour are going to struggle to get anywhere near them without some pretty dramatic PoDs. After all, the number of seats they would need would be very similar to 1992, if they couldn't overcome that even in far more favourable circumstances, they won't be able to do it when things are looking far better for the Tories.If they do cap losses at 11 or less, than Gaitskill's 1959 Election would still be Labour's worst post WWII performance; and if it's only a little worse than that, the prospects for Labour winning the 1987 race, at least on paper (and not taking leadership or platform into account) should look considerably more winnable, no?
Probably a longer shelf life than IOTL. But even if she goes into 1992 with a majority on a par with OTL's 1983, her unpopularity would still likely be enough for Labour to get themselves into a position where they could win the next election. If 1987 only saw a modest increase in the Tory majority, then Labour might still win more seats than OTL, and be in a better place to win 1992 due to Thatcher still being around.Of course that's also a possibility, and given it's Labour it may even be an inevitability. If the Suicide Note and subsequent Curbstomping still happens, but in 1987 instead of 1983, that could well mean that Tory dominance lasts even longer, no? I wonder what that means for Thatcher...
I mean, this is essentially what Thatcher was in OTL anyway.He might end up as leader in the 1984 leadership contest as the hard left will blame the moderates and right wingers for the 1983 defeat. I hate to think how badly he'd be hammered in 1987 right at the top of the boom though. Labour could end up level with the SDP Liberal Alliance. (Alright yes I'm exaggerating but it would be a catastrophic defeat for Labour and bad for the country. A strong opposition is vital for a functioning democracy otherwise you get an elected dictatorship)
Rodgers, Owen and Williams would all be sticking around if a moderate were elected-although Williams might effectively retire from politics. But there would still be a small number of Jenkinsite MPs, plus a few ex-MPs too, who would follow him into the new party. It wouldn't pose the same threat that the SDP did, but it would be provide a much needed boost to the Liberals (who they would ally themselves with) and add to the impression of chaos within the Labour Party.It is doubtful Jenkins would have many followers - splitting from Labour never crossed David Owen's mind until after Michael Foot had been elected in October 1980 and then the left went into overdrive with their absurd motions and deselections.
If the Tories win 1997 (or equivalent), and privatization of pretty much every other industry nationalized by Labour happens roughly as OTL schedule, is it possible that even the sacrosanct NHS could find itself being targeted?
Not a chance in hell, anymore than there'd be a chance of the Tories privatizing the state school system. There'd be a revolution if they tried. The B.B.C. however could well end up on the auction block.If the Tories win 1997 (or equivalent), and privatization of pretty much every other industry nationalized by Labour happens roughly as OTL schedule, is it possible that even the sacrosanct NHS could find itself being targeted? If not, what would even be left for the Thatcherists after Rail?
Not if they want to stay in power.
If the Conservative Party is still running on a platform that claims that Thatcher's policies have been, on the whole, a resounding success for Britain, are they really just to declare "we're out of ideas" rather than going in for a pound? Would any kind of deviation for the Beveridge Model be off limits, or might they try proposing that Britain transition to a Medicare Model?Not a chance in hell... There'd be a revolution if they tried.
OK, so that's a start; maybe throw in the Post Service as well. Still feels a little unambitious for the party enjoying this much of a high for so long, but then it may be there's just not that much left.The B.B.C. however could well end up on the auction block.
That too.... anymore than there'd be a chance of the Tories privatizing the state school system.
Royal Mail, the Land Registry, and Prisons are all things that have been privatised since the Tories came back to power, so we could see that happening early. Privatisation of those aspects of the rail system that remained in public hands, such as Network Rail and London Underground, could also be on the cards- the Tories proposed it for the latter in their 1997 manifesto. You might also see them take some of the steps that New Labour did OTL, such as bringing in tuition fees and independence for the Bank of England.If the Tories win 1997 (or equivalent), and privatization of pretty much every other industry nationalized by Labour happens roughly as OTL schedule, is it possible that even the sacrosanct NHS could find itself being targeted? If not, what would even be left for the Thatcherists after Rail?