WI: UK general election debates, 1964-onwards

What the title says. Here's how I think they would turn out. I'll note the OTL results for comparison.

1964 - Wilson demolishes Home with ease. Labour win a majority of around 50 (OTL: Labour won a majority of 4).

1966 - Wilson is widely viewed as having defeated Heath, although the latter is clearly a superior debater to Home. A Labour majority of around 120 (OTL: Labour won a majority of 96).

1970 - Heath really digs into Wilson over devaluation and his failure to get Britain into the EEC. The debate is seen as a draw, and doesn't have much impact. Labour are still expected to win, but the Tories end up winning with a similar majority to OTL - around 30.

February 1974 - Jeremy Thorpe becomes the first Liberal leader to be allowed into the debates. He positions himself as a moderate and implies that the Labour and Conservative parties are dangerous extremists. The Liberals end up with around 25% of the vote and 50 seats (compared to 19% and 14 seats in OTL). Labour and Liberals form a coalition government (OTL: Labour were just the largest party and formed a minority government).

October 1974 - Probably ditto (OTL: Labour won a majority of 3).

1979 - Callaghan comes across as a kind uncle, Thatcher comes across as aggressive and lightweight. Steel does well enough to improve his party's poll numbers. Hung parliament, perhaps with Labour as the largest party by a handful of seats. Another election within two years (OTL: The Conservatives won a majority of 43).

1983 - Foot is articulate but doesn't really look the part. Thatcher wins. Steel does well but not enough to have a meaningful impact on the opinion polls. Not much different to OTL - Conservative majority of somewhere around 144, give or take a handful of seats.

1987 - Thatcher wins again. Kinnock enters the debate with confidence but ends up looking foolish. Steel does his usual - good but not very impactful. Perhaps a slightly bigger Conservative majority than in OTL - around 120 compared to 102.

1992 - Major is boring, Kinnock blathers on too much. Ashdown comes across as the most Prime Ministerial. The Lib Dems end up doing about 5 percentage points better than OTL - 22-23%. Perhaps enough to wipe out the Conservative majority, which was 21 in OTL.

1997 - Blair and Ashdown rip into Major. Major holds his ground fairly well. Labour's victory is on a similar scale to OTL - 179 or so. The Lib Dems perhaps win a few more seats from the Tories due to Ashdown's impressive debate performance.

2001 - Hague wins this. Blair visibly feels the pressure after Hague slams Labour's record on public services, Europe and immigration. Kennedy criticises Blair from the left. But none of this is overwhelming enough to prevent another Labour victory - they end up with a majority of around 110 (OTL: 167).

2005 - Howard isn't as good as Hague, but he's seen as the debate winner. Kennedy again attacks Blair from his left and picks up a handful more seats from Labour. Labour majority of around 40 (OTL: 66).
 
So many dead butterflies.

First of all, what causes the debates because Home knows Wilson will be like a fish in water in such an environment and the Men in Grey Suits looked down on debates seeing as it took until 2010 for the idea to take off. The problem is that no one who loses in these cases is going to agree unless they think they can do it which they know they can't compared to their opponents, to get a 1964 debate you'd need someone other then Home and a radically different set of people running the party.

Sorry if this comes off as a bit much but it really is ASB, in it's current state if you insist on having the PM list stay the same.
 
Last edited:
The problem with these UK-centric timelines is an aversion to significantly change who governs Britain at what time, it seems.
 
What the title says. Here's how I think they would turn out. I'll note the OTL results for comparison.

1964 - Wilson demolishes Home with ease. Labour win a majority of around 50 (OTL: Labour won a majority of 4). Home was offered a debate but refused, actually I think he would done better than that you say, enough for a Hung Parliament!

1966 - Wilson is widely viewed as having defeated Heath, although the latter is clearly a superior debater to Home. A Labour majority of around 120 (OTL: Labour won a majority of 96). Can't see the debate making much difference much the same.

1970 - Heath really digs into Wilson over devaluation and his failure to get Britain into the EEC. The debate is seen as a draw, and doesn't have much impact. Labour are still expected to win, but the Tories end up winning with a similar majority to OTL - around 30. Agree Wilson would say that Heath was a return to the past and an extremist, Heath's line of attack you suggest would be spot on

February 1974 - Jeremy Thorpe becomes the first Liberal leader to be allowed into the debates. He positions himself as a moderate and implies that the Labour and Conservative parties are dangerous extremists. The Liberals end up with around 25% of the vote and 50 seats (compared to 19% and 14 seats in OTL). Labour and Liberals form a coalition government (OTL: Labour were just the largest party and formed a minority government). Agree Thorpe would do well, but it could have easily pushed a few votes either way in a few key seats towards either Heath or Wilson to have a majority which would have changed everything

October 1974 - Probably ditto (OTL: Labour won a majority of 3).See above

1979 - Callaghan comes across as a kind uncle, Thatcher comes across as aggressive and lightweight. Steel does well enough to improve his party's poll numbers. Hung parliament, perhaps with Labour as the largest party by a handful of seats. Another election within two years (OTL: The Conservatives won a majority of 43).Agree, thats why the Tories turned an offer from ITV & BBC for a TV debate, Thatcher wanted it but Gordon Reece said it was far too dangerous to risk with Callaghan.

1983 - Foot is articulate but doesn't really look the part. Thatcher wins. Steel does well but not enough to have a meaningful impact on the opinion polls. Not much different to OTL - Conservative majority of somewhere around 144, give or take a handful of seats. Agree, but Thacther would not have gone in for the kill against Foot personally, personally she liked and actually respected him espically for his stand against facism in the 1930's but disliked his poliices and views. Interesting do we have one "Alliance" leader on the satge or both Steel & Jenkins or just Jenkins as "PM degisnate"!

1987 - Thatcher wins again. Kinnock enters the debate with confidence but ends up looking foolish. Steel does his usual - good but not very impactful. Perhaps a slightly bigger Conservative majority than in OTL - around 120 compared to 102. Now Thatcher & Kinnock really did dis-like each other personally, it would have been agressive and nasty, Thatcher would attack Kinnock over Defence and his in-famous surrender remark! Again interesting to see who would have taken part for the Alliance as it was this time a duel leadership, Owen was closer to Thatcher espically on Defence & Foreign Affairs & would have teamed up on Kinnock, thats a good story in the making!

1992 - Major is boring, Kinnock blathers on too much. Ashdown comes across as the most Prime Ministerial. The Lib Dems end up doing about 5 percentage points better than OTL - 22-23%. Perhaps enough to wipe out the Conservative majority, which was 21 in OTL. Kinnock wanted a debate and was desprate for one, ITV, BBC & SKY all offered, but Major turned it down.... again like 1974 it could have changed a few votes in a few key seats and complety changed the result.

1997 - Blair and Ashdown rip into Major. Major holds his ground fairly well. Labour's victory is on a similar scale to OTL - 179 or so. The Lib Dems perhaps win a few more seats from the Tories due to Ashdown's impressive debate performance. This time Major was desprate for a debate and agreed to it as did Blair but then Blair changed his mind! Actually I think Major would have done well, it wanted to try and show Blair as hollow, a man with no substance and just wanting power, I don't think other than Blair making a complete balls up of it, Major would have won, but he could have pushed the majority to around 100 rather than 179!

2001 - Hague wins this. Blair visibly feels the pressure after Hague slams Labour's record on public services, Europe and immigration. Kennedy criticises Blair from the left. But none of this is overwhelming enough to prevent another Labour victory - they end up with a majority of around 110 (OTL: 167). Hague against Blair would have worth watching. Hague regulary beat Blair at PMQ'S, would have used his famous sense of humour well, agree probably would have reduced the majority from 167 to maybe below 100, which Hague said if they had made about 20-30 gains he would have statyed on for another Parliament.

2005 - Howard isn't as good as Hague, but he's seen as the debate winner. Kennedy again attacks Blair from his left and picks up a handful more seats from Labour. Labour majority of around 40 (OTL: 66). Howard would have done well he was a former Lawyer and QC and would have been more serious than Hague again could made a small amount of difference say the majority is 25-30 rather than 66, probably would have stayed on for a couple more years rather than going in 2005[/QUOTE]

See my comments above
 
Last edited:
Top