Would a "Wet-Liberal" alliance be more or less successful than SDP-Liberal?

[Prussian1871]

The question today is whether or not a moderate Conservative "Gang of Four", preferably during the rise of Thatcherism and Powellism, that allied with the Liberal Party would have a greater success overall than OTL's SDP-Liberal Alliance? Some things to consider:

1. How much better would they cooperate than the SDP-Liberals in terms of policy and an eventually merger (if at all)?

2. How would this effect the new alliance's vote share (especially in places like Western England where the Liberals do fairly well already, now backed with OTL Tory moderate voters)?

3. How would this scenario effect the Conservatives (now more staunchly right-wing) and Labour (from which the SDP never split from)?

 

[Prussian1871]

Bump bump.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

It probably wouldn't happen, because the Tories were in a very good place at that point, and it would be career suicide to leave the Tory Party in favour of an uncertain and patently unpopular centrist niche. The SDP only left because they were desperate - there was just as much ideological infighting during the 70s as in the 80s, but only one guy actually left, because Labour as a whole were onto a good thing.

That said, if we treat this as a realistic scenario when it really isn't:
1) They'd probably fit rather well with each other, but one has to wonder whether the Liberals would actually work with their former rivals on the centre-right. Presuming they could, there's no reason why they shouldn't merge.

2) As you say, Cornwall becomes a one-party state. The Alliance probably takes votes disproportionately from the Tories, which could result in a more electorally successful Labour Party but could just as easily end up in a permanent Tory-Liberal coalition until the End Of Days.

3) Tories falter in the polls, but depending on the scale of the split, they can still remain larger than the Alliance and then Blair themselves back towards the centre at some point. Labour do rather better in 1983 - maybe even winning - and as such, the hard left remains in control for longer.

But really, a realistic split would happen in the 70s (unlikely but possible) or between '93 and '03.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Only one Tory MP defected to the SDP historically. I remember wondering at the time why more didn't do this.

Now in the 1990s there were a few defections of Tory MPs to both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but by that time the wheels were starting to come off the bus.

So what we seem to have learned from this is that MPs rarely cross the floor from parties in government that have a good chance of remaining in government. They bolt from parties in opposition, or parties in government that are obviously on the way out.

So the question here is what is the POD? There are basically two. In one case the Tories wind up in opposition in the 1980s, most likely due to a boomerang effect of a Tory victory in 1974 putting them in power during bad economic times, and take a hard turn to the right. That gets you maybe a Tory SDP, and you won't get defections even from a pretty left wing Labour government.

The second possible POD is that there is a Tory government in the 1980s, but it falls flat on its face politically. The Falklands War goes very wrong or there is a strike they are not able to handle. There is another leader than Thatcher who is forced out, and a more right wing PM comes in and is unpopular. In this case, if Labour also moves left in opposition, you might get defections from both parties at the same time! But politicians would stick with Labour if they look like they are going to win.

As to the effect, IOTL the effect of the SDP was somewhat muted because they could get only a few of their MPs re-elected, so the Liberal Democrats really didn't wind up with many more seats than the old Liberals could have won. But they apparently did get an upgrade of their activist cadre.

 

[Prussian1871]

Alright, so this scenario is fairly plausible if we have an unpopular Tory opposition then. Is it safe to say we would we see pro-Euro Conservatives like Heseltine or Clarke be apart of this alliance?

 

[Politibrit]

I actually read about how there was a fair amount of interest from some Tory 'Wets' in joining the SDP at first, when things were going really badly for Thatcher during her first term. Although Christopher Brocklebank Fowler was the only one to actually defect, there were a number of others who thought about it, and at one point it was considered to be less of a question of if but when they would defect. But because they lacked any prominent figure to lead them out of the party as the Gang of Four had done with Labour, and also because of Thatcher's improving fortunes, it never came to pass. If those things werent there, you might have seen a dozen or so defections if things got really bad with the Tories. I would say they would fit pretty well together with the Liberals, to all intents and purposes there didnt seem to be a great deal of difference between the Tory left and the SDP at this point.

The answer to the questions really depend on the circumstances of the split, who are the equivalent of a Gang of Four and how do they feel about the Liberals as individuals (in OTL David Owen had a more negative view of them than the other three, especially Jenkins) are the Tories in government or opposition, and whether Labour is still having problems of its own with the left of its own party, which it might not be if the Conservatives electoral prospects are looking so bad that the wets jump ship.

I would say though that it might not effect things as much as you think with the voters, as plenty of former Tory voters opted for the SDP in OTL, indeed at first they were most of there support, hence why they took primarily Tory seats in by elections.

 

[sarahz]

I actually read about how there was a fair amount of interest from some Tory 'Wets' in joining the SDP at first, when things were going really badly for Thatcher during her first term. Although Christopher Brocklebank Fowler was the only one to actually defect, there were a number of others who thought about it, and at one point it was considered to be less of a question of if but when they would defect. But because they lacked any prominent figure to lead them out of the party as the Gang of Four had done with Labour, and also because of Thatcher's improving fortunes, it never came to pass. If those things werent there, you might have seen a dozen or so defections if things got really bad with the Tories. I would say they would fit pretty well together with the Liberals, to all intents and purposes there didnt seem to be a great deal of difference between the Tory left and the SDP at this point.

The answer to the questions really depend on the circumstances of the split, who are the equivalent of a Gang of Four and how do they feel about the Liberals as individuals (in OTL David Owen had a more negative view of them than the other three, especially Jenkins) are the Tories in government or opposition, and whether Labour is still having problems of its own with the left of its own party, which it might not be if the Conservatives electoral prospects are looking so bad that the wets jump ship.

I would say though that it might not effect things as much as you think with the voters, as plenty of former Tory voters opted for the SDP in OTL, indeed at first they were most of there support, hence why they took primarily Tory seats in by elections.

I remember discussing this with Hugh Dykes the very wet MP for Harrow East, (I think that was his seat) Apparently he very nearly did join the SDP but changed his mind at the last moment.

 

[FlyingSquirrel]

Would Jim Prior perhaps be one of the leading defectors? Thatcher sort of demoted him in 1981 by moving him from Employment to Northern Ireland, and I remember a documentary where he quipped that she'd have probably made him Governor of New South Wales if she could have.

A question, though - were the "wet" Tories still somewhat socially traditionalist at the time?