What would be the ramifications of Roy Hattersley winning the 1983 Labour Leadership Election?

[Time Enough]

In yet another @Time Enough ponders different avenues for Labour in the 1980s, I was wondering what would be the effect of Roy Hattersley winning the 1983 Labour Leadership contest?

Now the way I would do this is Kinnock still gets caught in his 1983 car crash as OTL during the campaign but unlike OTL he's injured enough to force him to cancel his campaign. Given that Peter Shore and Eric Heffer were rather toxic by this point, Roy would probably be the winner here.

Now, in this scenario there's also some interesting factors to the deputy leadership, with no Kinnock to reassure the Soft Left and also Hattersley being leader and all that, there's a strong chance the Deputy leader would be Michael Meacher which presents an interesting dynamic there.

So what would be the effects beyond 1983, Roy whilst maybe being slightly less gaff prone than Kinnock probably wouldn't inspire the same passion and energy as Kinnock did (there's a reason why folks have called Kinnock one of the best orators since Bevan) and also without a 'Left' man in charge I think any changes Hattersley would do would be hard to press upon the Tribunate/Soft Left folks.

Also Hattersley's open Pro-European stance may rub some of the other members the wrong way too.

Also how does Hattersley effect the fight against Millitant, the 1987 General Election and also would we maybe see a Leadership challenge in the late 80s?

 

[Time Enough]

Hmm, I'm wondering if a Hattersley victory would really fuck up the ousting of militant?

The Left at times were convinced that the ousting of Militant would become a witchunt against all of the Left etc. and what probably helped avoid a split of certain Left Wing members away from Labour over Militant at times seems to have been the presence of Foot and Kinnock. Since both were considered of the Left as it were then many members and more were convinced it wasn't a 'witchhunt' as it were.

The presence of Hattersley could cause a split earlier in way, though more of a Left Wing/Bennite split maybe? Maybe Heffer leaves or something? 1983-1987 Labour could be even chaotic in terms of factional warfare under Hattersley maybe?

 

[Time Enough]

Have any thoughts on this @OwenM and @Oppo ?

 

[Nyvis]

Hmm, I'm wondering if a Hattersley victory would really fuck up the ousting of militant?

The Left at times were convinced that the ousting of Militant would become a witchunt against all of the Left etc. and what probably helped avoid a split of certain Left Wing members away from Labour over Militant at times seems to have been the presence of Foot and Kinnock. Since both were considered of the Left as it were then many members and more were convinced it wasn't a 'witchhunt' as it were.

The presence of Hattersley could cause a split earlier in way, though more of a Left Wing/Bennite split maybe? Maybe Heffer leaves or something? 1983-1987 Labour could be even chaotic in terms of factional warfare under Hattersley maybe?

It'd be interesting if this ends up with a split of the whole party Left, though in all likelihood it'd only be the hard Left which is likely to end just as badly as it did for Militant.

But imagine: a split of the whole Left leaving a rump Labour right party? That'd be something to explore.

 

[OwenM]

On Militant it was that same conference that voted to proscribe them and expel the (known) members of the executive wasn't it? Although presumably after the leadership election, I imagine that would still go through.
So you'd probably have a situation where Militant are still officially proscribed but it's even harder to actually take action than OTL.

 

[Nyvis]

What are the chances militant and the left of the party would make overture to each other, with the proscription being struck when when Hattersley is pushed out for failing to deal with the mess and them integrating in a less disruptive way as part of their deal with the left? Unlikely I imagine?

 

[Time Enough]

On Militant it was that same conference that voted to proscribe them and expel the (known) members of the executive wasn't it? Although presumably after the leadership election, I imagine that would still go through.
So you'd probably have a situation where Militant are still officially proscribed but it's even harder to actually take action than OTL.

That wouldn’t surprise me, I guess that despite saying that Militant is proscribed the Bennite Left will hide Militant members and stuff seeing it as a witch-hunt. Probably see more internal battles ranging from Europe to Unilateral Disarmament which would be mess I imagine.

What are the chances militant and the left of the party would make overture to each other, with the proscription being struck when when Hattersley is pushed out for failing to deal with the mess and them integrating in a less disruptive way as part of their deal with the left? Unlikely I imagine?

Unlikely, the Left was split on Militant for starters so they probably won’t work with them in the usual sense. But with Hattersley I think there would be more of a fear of a ‘Witch-hunt’ so more heel dragging and fights internally and probably helping Militant members not be caught depending on the CLP.

But imagine: a split of the whole Left leaving a rump Labour right party? That'd be something to explore.

Only really going to happen in a ‘Roy Jenkins/David Owen become leader’ and even then that would be the worst of it. What you could see is members of the Bennite strain buggering off to new parties and maybe at most Eric Heffer if he gets pissed off or probably George Galloway and co.

 

[Elektronaut]

I doubt the underlying premise here. I'm dubious that just removing Kinnock would mean Hattersley would win.

The party was very much in a soft left centre of gravity, even amongst the PLP to an extent, which had gone left over the last few years. I don't at all see Hattersley getting the strong and early union support Kinnock did, nor the CLP backing - even when there were ballots, Kinnock won.

There was a very strong mood that the policy direction of the party had been settled, and that the party just had to be better at being left - which in fairness there was still ample scope for. It was generally seen that this had been settled by the last leadership election.

I think baring Kinnock it would probably be a soft left wildcard choice - Silkin or Cook, probably.

 

[Time Enough]

I doubt the underlying premise here. I'm dubious that just removing Kinnock would mean Hattersley would win.

The party was very much in a soft left centre of gravity, even amongst the PLP to an extent, which had gone left over the last few years. I don't at all see Hattersley getting the strong and early union support Kinnock did, nor the CLP backing - even when there were ballots, Kinnock won.

There was a very strong mood that the policy direction of the party had been settled, and that the party just had to be better at being left - which in fairness there was still ample scope for. It was generally seen that this had been settled by the last leadership election.

Yeah, to be fair I did realise that the only way for Hattersley to win would be Kinnock being removed rather dramatically, rather far into the contest. Hattersley becoming the leader of a Soft Left party who hates him would be incredibly amusing to think of, but you are right, it’s incredibly hard for it to occur.

I think baring Kinnock it would probably be a soft left wildcard choice - Silkin or Cook, probably

Cook would probably act like a Low Energy Kinnock in some ways but would be interesting. Problem see the Soft Left turn against him quicker since Cook seemed more conciliatory towards the Right far sooner than Kinnock.

I think the most interesting would be John Silken, Soft Left and seemingly less ‘eccentric’ than some of his colleagues he could probably be a rather competent leader he has a more effective run between 1983-1987. The problem is the ticking clock of his heart which would cause chaos if it occurred close to election.

 

[Elektronaut]

Well the crash happened when there was still nearly another three months before the result was declared OTL, and fairly early into the contest. To cancel the campaign altogether you'd have to be talking about life-changing injuries. I imagine the mood in favour of reopening nominations would be enormous in those circumstances.

 

[Time Enough]

Well the crash happened when there was still nearly another three months before the result was declared OTL, and fairly early into the contest. To cancel the campaign altogether you'd have to be talking about life-changing injuries. I imagine the mood in favour of reopening nominations would be enormous in those circumstances.

Hmm, yeah probable. It's easy to imagine Kinnock getting Dick Spring levels of injuries which whilst not stopping his political career, slow him down for awhile and could cause him to drop whilst he recovers. So reopened nominations make sense.