AHC: Destroy Labour post-1979, 'Lib Dem' majority by 2000

[AgentRudda]

The AHC is to destroy Labour as a party of government or opposition, preferably with a POD in 1979, or a minor POD earlier (different Cabinet careers etc), and with the end result being a centrist/moderate party having a Commons majority by 2000, with the Conservatives as the opposition.

My very brief thoughts could be a rule change for leadership elections in 1980, with Michael Foot winning still, but Tony Benn or someone else taking over after the 1983 defeat, triggering a mass exodus from Labour to the SDP/another similar party. Benn then takes the party down a route even further to the left than Foot, and other Things happen which ruin the Labour Party, and boost the new party. Importantly, this would need to ensure that all moderate wings of Labour leave the party rather than staying and trying to reform the party in the 1990s, ie no New Labour.

The third party could be the 'Liberal Democrats', or a totally new party with a different name, perhaps to take MPs from the Conservatives as well.

 

[AndyC]

I think if you start with a worse ending to the Labour campaign in 1983, that'd help. Labour were behind the Alliance for a lot of the campaign and only just pulled ahead at the end.

A result of Con 45, Alliance 28, Lab 24, resulting in something like Con 420, Lab 170, Alliance 39 would lead to political turmoil.
The Alliance's call for PR would look pretty fair, given the disjunct between votes and seats. Labour would be in disarray after the 1983 defeat, and if Benn (somehow holding his seat) were to take over and insist on pushing further left, you'd maybe see SDP Phase 2 as more remnant Labour jump ship to the SDP.

That could give you something to start with.

 

[Thande]

I think the problem is that if enough Labour voters, sitting MPs and councillors, etc., defect to this alt-SDP to make it this successful - it would change the character of it enough that it would just feel like a rebadged Labour dominated by different factions.

It's like the thing about positing Canada taking over vast swathes of the USA - I mean, you can set that up, but would it still recognisably be Canada if it had more former-Americans in it than Canadians?

 

[AndyC]

I think there would be significant differences - the SDP famously got a lot of previously disengaged people into activism (and they were notoriously unaware of what worked and what didn't); a more successful SDP could bring more in.
The Westminster landscape could also be very different - you'd have a bunch of defectors very worried about losing their seats, and if Maggie goes further with her enhanced majority, it's possible you'd get more Wet Tories following Brocklebank-Fowler.
The route to power would probably be through a Hung Parliament as well, so the need for PR (from the Alliance) would be paramount in any negotiations, and the moral case for rejecting it (following 1983) would be weakened for the Labour rump.

With a successful split, you may see other splits, as well. Probably not, but - hmm.

 

[Alex Richards]

I suppose one effect might be that if the SDP are more successful- potentially snagging a third or more of the Labour MPs?- we might see relations with the Liberals decline, perhaps with the Alliance breaking up in the early 90s as the Liberals feel isolated?

 

[Gorrister]

I suppose one effect might be that if the SDP are more successful- potentially snagging a third or more of the Labour MPs?- we might see relations with the Liberals decline, perhaps with the Alliance breaking up in the early 90s as the Liberals feel isolated?

A favourite of mine is Owen then leaving the SDP to form his own Reform party and going into government with the Tories.

 

[KingCrawa]

I created a list doing more or less this but it had a pro-Liberal 1967 POD. So there might be something in there to work with

 

[moth]

One of the things that needs to be addressed is the 'image' of the SDP/Liberal Alliance, particularly the SDP. One of the intentions Steel had with pushing Jenkins to go for it was access to the working class base that Labour historically relied upon- the Liberals were decent-ish for the middle class but beyond local champions, didn't have much root that could shove Labour off balance (which is what would be needed to replace them). The SDP was part of this strategy, however they ended up, in the words of Simon Hoggart, a rabble of "London intellectuals surveying the declining Britain from the comfort of Holland Park", lacking a lear vision to rally around (they were the party 'looking for a better yesterday') or just coming off as middle class types proclaiming how working class they really were. I suspect that to get them to really move hilt, you'd need to avoid the Owenite takeover of the party- this has been cited as a big issue in moving the party towards the 'Labour for the middle class' image.

 

[Blackadder Mk2]

I did something like with for With Nowhere Else To Turn, but looking back it was done with a partisan mind-set and not enough research into more than a handful of personalities. So I'll try something different.

If you ask the Liberals, the SDP failed to win over the working-class vote because they were too middle class and if you have the SDP-loyalists they say the Alliance/Liberals/Jenkins prevented it. For the sake of the WI, I'll be guessing the latter is the case since the likes of Healey, Hattersley, and Smith seem too tribal to quiet.

Maybe have a 2-2.5% swing from Labour to the Tories in 1979 so Thatcher has about 15 more seats (14 from Labour and 1 from the Liberals), which gives Thatcher 354-359 seats against Labour's 249-254 so that's a majority of 74-84 excluding the UUP. Maybe Thatcher feels more comfortable about stuff like rejecting the deal Gilmour and Carrington came back with in 1981 and withholding contributions from the EEC and doing her reshuffle earlier. Amidst a background of Foot winning the leadership and Benn getting the Deputy position, a few more Tory MPs make the jump than OTL.

Falklands goes OTL but Darlington ends with the Tories winning and Foot stepping down. Benn wins and more Labour MPs defect. Labour stays strong and hard-left enough that it keeps the Alliance from breaking through but not popular enough to bury them. Labour loses votes while the Alliance stays semi-detached from each other under Owen and can't break through until Thatcher wins 1991 with a 40-seat majority despite the Poll Tax and introducing an Insurance System to the NHS. On the bright side, this still has the Alliance break through and merge after Owen is coup'd by a junior MP- having filled his Shadow Cabinet with yes-men. 1995 sees a reverse-1987 where the Liberal and Social Democrats are confirmed as the main Opposition Party while the Tories enjoy the realities of a 10-seat majority, only sustained by the power of Owen's bitterness.

The next five years are a cake-walk and the 2000 election is a landslide victory. The charismatic, young leader is both heir to One Nation Conservatism, Liberalism, and Social Democracy all in one. People ask if he can do it and a lot of them believe he can.

If Charlie Kennedy says Britain needs the LSD, then Britain will swallow it down without question.

 

[Oppo]

and if Benn (somehow holding his seat)

You could have Benn take over for Foot after the Tories/SDP win in Darlington, or have him take any of the safe seats he was offered in 1983.

I think the problem is that if enough Labour voters, sitting MPs and councillors, etc., defect to this alt-SDP to make it this successful - it would change the character of it enough that it would just feel like a rebadged Labour dominated by different factions.

It's like the thing about positing Canada taking over vast swathes of the USA - I mean, you can set that up, but would it still recognisably be Canada if it had more former-Americans in it than Canadians?

The Alliance would probably be more of a big tent "we aren't the Tories" group in opposition, and with PR, the parties could remain distinct enough.