• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

What would a 1980s Tony Benn premiership look like?

Techdread

Somewhere between a Bevanite & a Bennite
I know there are a few threads on here that ask about how to make the late (and great, to some including myself) Tony Benn PM in the 1980s, however there doesn't seem to be much talk about what his government might look like, the kind of policies it would implement in office, and how successful it might or might not be in those endeavours. Whilst already aware of Benn's own personal views & policies, it's also a question of what could/would be passed by the Labour Party ITTL.

I would like to put such a proposal forward to you, my comrades; the starting point is Heath successfully retaining a majority at the Feb. 1974 general election as most opinion polls pointed to at the time. Ensuing leadership fights within Labour eventually see Benn assume the mantle in the mid-to-late '70s and we see an earlier SDP split accordingly. The economic and social unrest of the late '70s take place, allowing the foundations for an electorate to seek refuge from the status quo of Heath's Tories, hedging their bets with Tony Benn as PM.
 
Off the top of my head, and based on the year I've researched heavily (1976), we've got some fairly clear general trends.

The Nationalised Industries would continue their trajectory. That's not good news for the British economy.

Benn was a strong supporter of Sinn Fein and a united Ireland, and would work towards that end. Of course, the Unionists in Northern Ireland wouldn't be happy, and the Troubles would become even more unpleasant than they were with an existential threat hanging over them. Trust me when I say it would not have been pleasant. His comments on the IRA (not Sinn Fein, although in the 1970s, the two are very linked), when shorn of incoherent evasion, came down to it being OK for the IRA to murder civilians because that's the sort of thing that happens in an armed struggle, and if the Loyalists in Northern Ireland didn't like it, too bad.

He was strongly opposed to membership of Europe, and claimed that he would pull Britain out at the first opportunity.

According to Crossland, Benn was happy that Labour lost the 1979 election; Benn believed that being in opposition would enable the Labour Party to shift decisively and irrevocably to the Left, and that this would be rewarded by the electorate at the next election. Further, he supported various moves on the constitution of the Labour Party that were to form a fundamental part of the Militant entryism.

At the time in question, he held Mao in high regard, calling him a great man.
Would anything good come out of a Benn ministry, in your view?
 
Off the top of my head, and based on the year I've researched heavily (1976), we've got some fairly clear general trends.

The Nationalised Industries would continue their trajectory. That's not good news for the British economy.

Benn was a strong supporter of Sinn Fein and a united Ireland, and would work towards that end. Of course, the Unionists in Northern Ireland wouldn't be happy, and the Troubles would become even more unpleasant than they were with an existential threat hanging over them. Trust me when I say it would not have been pleasant. His comments on the IRA (not Sinn Fein, although in the 1970s, the two are very linked), when shorn of incoherent evasion, came down to it being OK for the IRA to murder civilians because that's the sort of thing that happens in an armed struggle, and if the Loyalists in Northern Ireland didn't like it, too bad.

He was strongly opposed to membership of Europe, and claimed that he would pull Britain out at the first opportunity.

According to Crossland, Benn was happy that Labour lost the 1979 election; Benn believed that being in opposition would enable the Labour Party to shift decisively and irrevocably to the Left, and that this would be rewarded by the electorate at the next election. Further, he supported various moves on the constitution of the Labour Party that were to form a fundamental part of the Militant entryism.

At the time in question, he held Mao in high regard, calling him a great man.
Yeesh.That’s unpleasant.

I mean,I didn’t particularly like him before but still,what a twit.
 
There are many things, pro- and anti- one can say about him, but not twit.

His "Tests for Democracy", in which he proposed five questions that need to be asked of any institution to see if it is democratic remain sound.

What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you exercise it?
To whom are you accountable?
How can we get rid of you?

One can expand and develop those, but as a quick thumbnail check, it remains great.
Sorry about the twit thing then.
 
At the time he was in charge of energy policy, Benn was pro-nuclear power - so he might build more power plants (and regret it later).

The Alternative Economic Strategy is a big thing he'd want to do, though whether he can would depend on the Cabinet and if they'll rebel or not.

we see an earlier SDP split accordingly.

If Benn can win a majority despite a SDP-equivalent, the SDP would need to take more Tory voters than Labour (or at least "enough"). They did OTL pick up quite a number of Tory voters, so this might not take much change. If Labour's going 'loony left' but Heath messed up badly & the monetarists are snapping at his heels, where are you gonna go?
 
At the time in question, he held Mao in high regard, calling him a great man.

Seeing it after all is the 1970s were talking about, on this point, I must admit I need a little more context to be able to judge Benn on that comment in particular. Many Western leaders would make favourable comments about Mao Zedong at the time owing to him opening up to the West, and you'll have no problems finding Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Pierre Trudeau, Georges Pompidou, etc. having said very positive things about Mao, and likening him to a statesman.
 
Seeing it after all is the 1970s were talking about, on this point, I must admit I need a little more context to be able to judge Benn on that comment in particular. Many Western leaders would make favourable comments about Mao Zedong at the time owing to him opening up to the West, and you'll have no problems finding Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Pierre Trudeau, Georges Pompidou, etc. having said very positive things about Mao, and likening him to a statesman.
Say,when did it became better known in the West that he pretty much killed millions of people and is recognixed along with Hitler and Stalin as one of the worst human beings in history?
 
That's true enough. I think the big difference is that while the view of Mao generally changed over the decades, Tony Benn's view on Mao didn't shift. In 2006, he described Mao as one of the greatest world leaders of all time.
Did

Did he not know by now that he killed millions of people
 
That's true enough. I think the big difference is that while the view of Mao generally changed over the decades, Tony Benn's view on Mao didn't shift. In 2006, he described Mao as one of the greatest world leaders of all time.

Tony Benn: June 1996: "Had a long talk to the Chinese First Secretary at the embassy — a very charming man called Liao Dong — and said how much I admired Mao Tse tung or Zedong, the greatest man of the twentieth century."

Okay, in 1996 or 2006 it's definitely not kosher.

In 1976, I can excuse it on the grounds of, well, Mao first dying on September 9th of that year, so if there's any particular year in history you're going to expect Western politicians to offer kind words about Mao Zedong, it's 1976.
 
I've no idea what he knew, suspected, regarded as probable propaganda, or anything else. Of course, it's difficult now to ask him. As a general rule, he was very consistent in not changing views.

Tony Benn: June 1996: "Had a long talk to the Chinese First Secretary at the embassy — a very charming man called Liao Dong — and said how much I admired Mao Tse tung or Zedong, the greatest man of the twentieth century."
If you had to dislike every politician who praised Mao whilst in the presence of the Chinese First Secretary at the embassy, you’d run out of politicians to dislike.
 
If you had to dislike every politician who praised Mao whilst in the presence of the Chinese First Secretary at the embassy, you’d run out of politicians to dislike.
I'm pretty sure that quote comes from his diary-so if he mentioned that without clarification, it's more than reasonable to assume that is reflective of his views.
 
I'm pretty sure that quote comes from his diary-so if he mentioned that without clarification, it's more than reasonable to assume that is reflective of his views.
It was from his diaries (and it’s only a portion of the wider entry) and it isn’t completely reflective of his views. There are times in his diaries and his wider writings where he’s very critical of Mao, so I wouldn’t say he’s a Maoist or ignorant of crimes committed under Mao’s rule.
 
It’s probably quite theoretical and abstracted from what a Benn premiership would actually look like as such. It’s less pertinent than, say, the status of British support for the Khmer Rouge and their genocide (which Benn would not have supported, unlike Thatcher).
 
Seeing it after all is the 1970s were talking about, on this point, I must admit I need a little more context to be able to judge Benn on that comment in particular.

The context is he had exactly the same blinkers that his protégé Corbyn does when it comes to People On Our Side and in a foreign policy context this manifested itself as Mao admiration, as well as Castro admiration and all the horribly predictable rest. As late as the final years of his life he thought the only human rights problem in Cuba was Guantanamo Bay. In fairness like Corbyn he was also capable of lapsing into selective pacifism towards right-wing tyrannies when they took on the west, as he did over the Falklands, so he was even-handed at least.
 
In an interesting bit of information I found while doing some research, Benn felt that the centralization of power with Prime Minister was fundamentally undermining the powers of Parliament, and needed to be weakened.

Tony Benn said:
My argument can be very simply summarised. The wide range of powers at present exercised by a British prime minister, both in that capacity and as party leader, are now so great as to encroach upon the legitimate rights of the electorate, undermine the essential role of parliament, usurp some of the functions of collective cabinet decision making and neutralise much of the influence deriving from the internal democracy of the Labour Party. In short, the present centralisation of power into the hands of one person has gone too far and amounts to a system of personal rule in the very heart of our parliamentary democracy. My conclusion is that the powers of the prime minister, and party leader, must be made more accountable to those over whom they are exercised, so that we can develop a constitutional premiership in Britain. To transform an absolute premiership into a constitutional premiership would involve making some fundamental changes in its functions comparable to those made over the years, when the crown was transformed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.

While I can’t find an open PDF version of the lecture this came from (The Case for a Constitutional Premiership, if you’re curious), it would seem likely that Benn would deliberately weaken the post of the Prime Minister if he got the job.
 
It would seem likely that Benn would deliberately weaken the post of the Prime Minister if he got the job.

At the risk of channelling Art, I'd believe that when it happened.
 
The nationalised industries would likely see some amount of reform to allow for greater industrial democracy, seeing as that was really the goal of any half-way economic literate person on the Labour left from the '60s onwards. The idea that things would have simply rusted and broken down over time, with Benn presiding over centralised industrial malaise is one of those Dominic Sandbrook "baby's first counterfactual" scenarios that shouldn't be entertained by anyone with a decent understanding of 20th century Britain.

The Institute for Workers' Control will be inside the tent, as it were.

In an interesting bit of information I found while doing some research, Benn felt that the centralization of power with Prime Minister was fundamentally undermining the powers of Parliament, and needed to be weakened.

While I can’t find an open PDF version of the lecture this came from (The Case for a Constitutional Premiership, if you’re curious), it would seem likely that Benn would deliberately weaken the post of the Prime Minister if he got the job.
To go along with this, his rather libertarian support for freedom of information will probably carry on into his premiership, thereby opening up the workings of government to the people. Trust in government would likely be a lot higher as a result in the long term.
 
Benn was, as most know, progressive and forward-thinking on social issues when even compared to other Labour MP’s. Would some of the reforms that passed during Blair’s premiership (equalization of the age of consent, removing the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces) happen a decade earlier under Benn?

At the risk of channelling Art, I'd believe that when it happened.
Not saying he would be successful, but I’d imagine he’d try at the least.
 
Back
Top