A better 1987 election for Labour?

[Time Enough]

In 1987 Britain went had an election and Thatcher got a majority again, but the true winner in a sense was probably Labour who had managed to avoid being outmanoeuvred by the Alliance as the main opposition and was able to showcase it could adapt to the changing times.

Now of course, Labour could have done better, despite a good campaign for the most part, a series of gaffes, mistakes and problems outside of the campaign meant that Labour in the end only gained 20 seats. Now this isn't a discussion about Labour winning, but it's about how Labour could do better and gain 40/50 seats on there 209 instead of the 20.

POD's can be as far back as 1984 in my opinion.

Also it would be interesting to consider what effects this would have on Labour policy and ideas in the next few years following?

 

[Elektronaut]

If you're talking about literally only another ten seats shifting over OTL then I don't think you really need to engage in any grand POD speculation. You're talking about only hundreds of votes in the ten most marginal seats. That's potential local campaign-level variance territory.

 

[Time Enough]

If you're talking about literally only another ten seats shifting over OTL then I don't think you really need to engage in any grand POD speculation. You're talking about only hundreds of votes in the ten most marginal seats. That's potential local campaign-level variance territory.

Ah alright then. I’ve changed it a bit to about 40/50 seat gain instead.

I know that Labour of 87’ can’t gain a majority by any degree but could you have it gain substantially more?

That’s the idea here really.

 

[Elektronaut]

Ah alright then. I’ve changed it a bit to about 40/50 seat gain instead.

I know that Labour of 87’ can’t gain a majority by any degree but could you have it gain substantially more?

That’s the idea here really.

Fifty or so seats is possibly doable but it seems a stretch to me. You'd need about a two and a half percent swing from Conservatives to Labour to get that. Which seems small, but when you consider how stable the Conservative vote was and the fact that Labour had a strong campaign, (Kinnock had his defence gaffe but Thatcher had 'where I want, when I want' and a troubled campaign) it's difficult to see how you get that. The Tories comfortably won over forty percent of the vote, at a fairly stable level until Blair.

You'd probably need to take a bit more from the Alliance, mainly, but I don't see Labour getting five percent more from them at all.

 

[Time Enough]

Damn, this is rather difficult. It does make sense though, even after Poll Tax the Tories still managed to win so (the 1992 Labour Campaign was awful too so).

You'd probably need to take a bit more from the Alliance, mainly, but I don't see Labour getting five percent more from them at all.

I was wondering, if Alliance tried to commit to merging just before campaign started and David Owen splits off and does his whole Continuity SDP thing just as 1987 starts could you see vote splitting occurring a bit?

The only way I’m seeing Labour doing better based on this info is if there was a big meaningful scandal to occur in Thatcher’s cabinet at the start of the campaign and even then I doubt it would add much to a swing.

 

[Elektronaut]

I just said I thought fifty seats was difficult. Thirty to fortyish net is definitely doable. Why would Labour need more out of what is almost certainly an unwinable election for them? That's a good haul. It's miles above where Cameron started off on for example.

Even if you changed absolutely nothing until the next election, which is unlikely, it might mean Major ends up with no effective majority.

 

[Time Enough]

I just said I thought fifty seats was difficult. Thirty to fortyish net is definitely doable. Why would Labour need more out of what is almost certainly an unwinable election for them? That's a good haul. It's miles above where Cameron started off on for example.

Yeah makes sense, well going beyond the election then, what would be the effect of that then? Like a thirty to fortyish haul already means that there’s a larger haul of ‘Soft’ Left types into the party.

Would a bigger number of seats have any effect at all to Labour moving forward?

Would it mean that Thatcher is maybe ousted slightly earlier?

 

[Elektronaut]

I'm not at all saying this in a hostile way, but are you trying to get me to write your timeline for you?

I've wrote people's timelines in the past and I really don't want to do it again. The best guide is your own imagination inspired by research.

 

[Time Enough]

I've wrote people's timelines in the past and I really don't want to do it again. The best guide is your own imagination inspired by research.

I have been doing research on this period anyway so maybe I’ll share some of my ideas on this anyway;

-A better 1987 means both Bryan Gould and Peter Mandelson are even more lauded by the internal Labour Party, maybe Gould is able to gain Shadow Chancellor though I doubt Roy would be letting that happen.

-A large contingency of Left Wing/Soft Left MPs comes in, this could effect the 1988 leadership/deputy leadership maybe, doubt Benn gets in but Prescott has an even easier time of it if there’s more of a harder Left Wing.

-A larger Left is one that is more likely to have some splinters.

Those are some ideas for the immediate period afterwards. I could see Thatcher being dumped earlier and maybe a snap election as soon as the polls clear post poll tax. Depending on how things go then the SDP split maybe be an even more of a damp squib (particularly if Rosie Barnes loses Greenwhich).

Also a slight swing to Labour means Alf Dubs may stay as MP and John O’Farrell stays his assistant so who knows what that would bring.

 

[marktaha]

If they'd publicised the Poll Tax more

 

[Lucon50]

If they'd publicised the Poll Tax more

After the 87 election?

 

[AH Layard]

The Tories had been talking about replacing the rates since 1974. It was only after the 1987 election that they pushed forward with legislation on the poll tax, in the beginning it wasn't that controversial because it wasn't widely understood, as soon as people realised the projected impact on their household finances and their fears were confirmed by the Scottish example in 1989/90, everything kicked off.

 

[Time Enough]

If they'd publicised the Poll Tax more

The Tories had been talking about replacing the rates since 1974. It was only after the 1987 election that they pushed forward with legislation on the poll tax, in the beginning it wasn't that controversial because it wasn't widely understood, as soon as people realised the projected impact on their household finances and their fears were confirmed by the Scottish example in 1989/90, everything kicked off.

I wasn't expecting people to be commenting on this, but I will mention that since this time I've had some thoughts;

- A Greenwich By-election PoD could be good one for a more successful 1987, the Alliance doesn't gain a post by-election swing and Labour comes into 1987 more firmly as the 'main opposition' instead of everyone questioning if they could be overrun by the Alliance.

- If not, it's fairly easily to have a slight polling swing occur before the election meaning that Labour gains 30 - 40 seats instead of the 20 they did otl, places like Nottingham East and similar swing to Labour instead. Speaking of Nottingham East, having Sharon Aitken not screwing the pooch and the aftermath of it making Labour look foolish, could be a good PoD as well.

- I'm more interested in the aftermath now than Labour just doing a bit better, I can see Thatcher potentially leaving earlier, there were several politicians and her husband who preferred her retiring in 88' and she did ponder it. The aftermath most likely see's someone dull like John Wakeham or Tom King having potential in such a scenario.

- Labour is more buoyant and Kinnock is less likely to have his year of depression, Labour is more likely to be coming into office in 1991/2 is slightly more to the Left though the policy review will still happen, potential PoDs could lead to Bryan Gould as Shadow Chancellor etc.

- Poll Tax is still going to happen as @AH Layard kind of pointed out, even fairly moderate Tories saw it as a good idea. I think Poll Tax will still be bungled and the effects of it's introduction will still occur, though they may back off earlier without Thatcher so potentially no Riots?

 

[marktaha]

After the 87 election?

No - before.It was the reason I was going to vote Alliance!

 

[Makemakean]

The only way I’m seeing Labour doing better based on this info is if there was a big meaningful scandal to occur in Thatcher’s cabinet at the start of the campaign and even then I doubt it would add much to a swing.

Why not have the scandal occur in the Liberals?

Figure out a way to have Cyril Smith and Clement Freud both come to the fore, have links be made to Jeremy Thorpe and his murky past, and have questions be asked about how David Steel behaved at that time. What did he know? When did he know it?

With David Owen already having a strained relationship to say the least with David Steel, who knows where you can take this...?

 

[Time Enough]

With David Owen already having a strained relationship to say the least with David Steel, who knows where you can take this...?

I don’t think the Sex Scandals within the Liberals will come out due to the weird gentlemen agreements around it (from what I know, people knew, just didn’t talk about it) but I can definitely see a scenario where the Alliance attempts an earlier merger which leads Owen leading a split which shreds the Alliances polling.

You also have the @Callan thing of having Thatcher injured during an IRA attack leading a Conservative leader who is less effective come election.

Do love you quoting writing from about four years ago, I have done more scenarios and research on this topic so my opinions on this thread are slightly different.