A man who will certainly be our Prime Minister for a very long time.
(not sure if this reference is too obscure as I only showed you the bizarre biography quote at a meetup like five years ago).
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AHC: The SDP goes the way of TIG
- Thread starter Meadow
- Start date
(not sure if this reference is too obscure as I only showed you the bizarre biography quote at a meetup like five years ago).
Makemakean
Mr Makemean
- Pronouns
- Logical, unlike those in German
A man who will certainly be our Prime Minister for a very long time.
(not sure if this reference is too obscure as I only showed you the bizarre biography quote at a meetup like five years ago).
Someone should write a vignette based on this scenario.
Falklands never happens, and in 1984, the SDP-Liberal Alliance wins a ridiculously big landslide. David Steel becomes Prime Minister with Roy Jenkins as his chancellor. A referendum brings about proportional representation. As a consequence, there's never any real argument for a proper merger between the Liberals and the SDP.
And then the next thirty-five years, you basically see the Liberals in the centre as the biggest party, under David Steel shifting from coalitions to the left to coalitions on the right, to coalitions to the left, etc.
In 2019, David Steel is celebrating the thirty-fifth anniversary of his being appointed Prime Minister, never having been out of office since.
Blackadder Mk2
Well-known member
TIG-CUK's problem is that the LibDems are not only an existing alternative but a far superior one with an established voter-base, geographic appeal, and policy programme. Being quite blunt, there was literally no reason for someone not to go Orange outside of egotism and/or a Labour-based sense that the LibDems failed Bae Tony/enabled David Hitler Cameron. To have TIG-CUK succeed in the same way as the SDP you'd need the LibDems in a much worst place i.e. 2015 down to 3-4 MPs, 2017 or an equivalent Snappy barely improving/stagnating/even going down.
Arguably they never had much of a chance, but let's say Boris/Gove wins 2016, landslide Snappy on a Brexit Dividend, Corbyn survives a second coup, and then 2019 has Boris decide on No Deal after alienating everyone in Europe and hugging Trump on the steps of the White House. There's smaller stuff too i.e. a second challenge has the dreaded Momentum/Corbynite Left takeover the party apparatus, Boris has Bercow kicked out, the Snappy has the Brexit Select Committee end up with Hoey as Chair, the LibDems allow non-members to run for leader by 2018, and Tory and Labour de-selections are made easier.
No Deal Brexit and Corbyn surviving challenge #3 when he lines out a Rejoin referendum sparks de-selection calls and let's say ends in someone like Benn or Watson being challenged. April 2019 has about 12-3 Tory MPs and 20-30 Labour MPs announce Reform/Progressive/Re-Unite UK/A Name That Doesn't Have CUK As Its Acronym. Quickly all the various Remain groups link up in the face of Brexit Forever. Moribund and depressed LibDems push for a new alliance and this moulds into a deal to preserve LibDem seats.
Anymore would be FH but it'd be a stronger start.
As for the SDP being TIG, the easy answer is that Healey wins 1981 and a few unhappy MPs leave anyway or they split during the 1970s over the EEC Referendum going NO or Wilson sabotaging Heath's bid.
Arguably they never had much of a chance, but let's say Boris/Gove wins 2016, landslide Snappy on a Brexit Dividend, Corbyn survives a second coup, and then 2019 has Boris decide on No Deal after alienating everyone in Europe and hugging Trump on the steps of the White House. There's smaller stuff too i.e. a second challenge has the dreaded Momentum/Corbynite Left takeover the party apparatus, Boris has Bercow kicked out, the Snappy has the Brexit Select Committee end up with Hoey as Chair, the LibDems allow non-members to run for leader by 2018, and Tory and Labour de-selections are made easier.
No Deal Brexit and Corbyn surviving challenge #3 when he lines out a Rejoin referendum sparks de-selection calls and let's say ends in someone like Benn or Watson being challenged. April 2019 has about 12-3 Tory MPs and 20-30 Labour MPs announce Reform/Progressive/Re-Unite UK/A Name That Doesn't Have CUK As Its Acronym. Quickly all the various Remain groups link up in the face of Brexit Forever. Moribund and depressed LibDems push for a new alliance and this moulds into a deal to preserve LibDem seats.
Anymore would be FH but it'd be a stronger start.
As for the SDP being TIG, the easy answer is that Healey wins 1981 and a few unhappy MPs leave anyway or they split during the 1970s over the EEC Referendum going NO or Wilson sabotaging Heath's bid.
Thanks, now I’m gonna have nightmares of David Steel as a more successful Giovanni Giolitti.Someone should write a vignette based on this scenario.
Falklands never happens, and in 1984, the SDP-Liberal Alliance wins a ridiculously big landslide. David Steel becomes Prime Minister with Roy Jenkins as his chancellor. A referendum brings about proportional representation. As a consequence, there's never any real argument for a proper merger between the Liberals and the SDP.
And then the next thirty-five years, you basically see the Liberals in the centre as the biggest party, under David Steel shifting from coalitions to the left to coalitions on the right, to coalitions to the left, etc.
In 2019, David Steel is celebrating the thirty-fifth anniversary of his being appointed Prime Minister, never having been out of office since.
I really like this idea. Having Jenkins join the Liberals and Brown taking his place is the makings of a PR-nightmare. Brown’s tendency to be tired and emotional is bound to be parroted around by the press. Another POD could be the SDP forming in spite of Healey leading the Labour Party.I'd forgotten that, but it was pretty much what I was thinking.
For the different Gang approach, George Brown strikes me as an obvious alt-member - and whilst Rodgers was, as said, more significant than joked, I think his lack of notice with the *public* makes him the most reasonable to keep.
While somewhat goes against the rules of this challenge, how about the TIG forms up before the 2017 snappy? While the tabloid claims a splinter could get 200 MPs were a bit exaggerated, I imagine they’d get more than 11 MPs and some bigger names as well (Blair, Millibands one and two, Cooper).
- Location
- Municipal Commune of Bourne
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I really like this idea. Having Jenkins join the Liberals and Brown taking his place is the makings of a PR-nightmare. Brown’s tendency to be tired and emotional is bound to be parroted around by the press. Another POD could be the SDP forming in spite of Healey leading the Labour Party.
While somewhat goes against the rules of this challenge, how about the TIG forms up before the 2017 snappy? While the tabloid claims a splinter could get 200 MPs were a bit exaggerated, I imagine they’d get more than 11 MPs and some bigger names as well (Blair, Millibands one and two, Cooper).
The thing is, I think those who'd be interested in forming such a party were counting on Labour self-destructing in 2017 and they would be able to capture the traumatised remnants, slash the membership to a malleable bone (isnt this cartilage?) and return to the sunlit uplands of 2000-ish.
- Location
- Balham
- Pronouns
- he/him
Yes, a split only became inevitable when the snappy entrenched, rather than as expected, turfing out Corbyn.The thing is, I think those who'd be interested in forming such a party were counting on Labour self-destructing in 2017 and they would be able to capture the traumatised remnants, slash the membership to a malleable bone (isnt this cartilage?) and return to the sunlit uplands of 2000-ish.
- Location
- Municipal Commune of Bourne
- Pronouns
- He/Him
i wrote this this morning because im insane
From A Long Time In Politics, by Huey Richards (2003)
For a moment in the 70s and 80s it seemed as if the right of the Labour Party, frustrated at the increasing control of the left, would form a new centrist party, form a common cause with the Liberals and possibly One Nation Tories disquieted by Margaret Thatcher's brand of conservatism and realign British politics around itself. It began with the Lincoln Democratic Labour Party, formed by Dick Taverne as he faced deselection by his constituency party. He later founded the Campaign for Social Democracy, which aimed to decapitate leading left-wingers such as Tony Benn. The victory of the Labour Party in 1974 put an end to this attempts, but in 1975 Labour right-wingers formed the Social Democratic Association which was reputedly associated with figures such as Roy Jenkins and Reg Prentice.
In 1980, the SDA began to talk of standing candidates against official Labour candidates at the next general election and the group would eventually be expelled that year for such activities. In 1981 Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers - the so-called Gang of Four - left the Labour Party, launching the Council for Social Democracy. In March, it was renamed the Social Democratic Party, absorbing the Social Democratic Alliance.
Over the coming months, several Labour MPs (and one Conservative) would defect to the newborn SDP. It would not be long before the party began to suffer setbacks however. First was the test of the Crosby by-election in November, at which it was suggested Shirley Williams be put forward as their candidate. She refused, having no desire to return to the 'boy's club' of Westminster and hoping to build the Social Democratic movement outside Parliament. The Conservatives held Crosby, a disappointment for the SDP's first democratic test. Instead the laurels seemed to be heaped upon the Liberals, who had went from third place to outright victory at the Croydon North West by-election in June, thanks to the Alliance brokered between them and the SDP.
In February 1982 the party conference narrowly agreed with the steering committee that the formal election of the leader would be held amongst the parliamentary party alone. This would prove to be a fateful decision. The following month saw Roy Jenkins contest the Glasgow Hillhead by-election. The bitterness around the conference decision, most notably from David Owen in Parliament and Shirley Williams amongst the grassroots saw the erstwhile leader narrowly defeated by the Conservatives. Despite this, Jenkins still intended to stand for the leadership. More humiliating was the Mitcham and Morden by-election that June, as SDP MP Bruce Douglas-Mann resigned his seat and stood in the subsequent by-election. This was done without the leadership's go ahead, and Douglas-Mann received little financial support in his campaign. The result was an agonisingly slim Labour hold, which came as a surprise to the embattled Foot leadership, which had expected the Conservatives to win thanks to the progress of the Falklands War.
The leadership election in July 1982 saw Jenkins narrowly triumph over David Owen, but the party's travails had only just begun. The SDP's weakness as a brand seemed to confirm to Jenkins that the way forward was a full merger with the Liberals. Owen, who hoped to turn the SDP into a genuinely new political force of the centre, was horrified by this turn of events, as Jenkins sought a new deal with the Liberals which would integrate the Alliance to a far greater degree than previously proposed. It was at this point that the SDP split, Owen taking his followers out and into his own Radical Party - attempts to seek a simple electoral pact with the Liberals and SDP would be flatly rejected.
The infighting in the former Labour right and their subsequent crash in the polls, served to reflect well on Foot's leadership and with Denis Healey as Deputy, was able to convince those on the right who had not left that there was no path to electability for the centre-left outside the Labour Party. This was reflected in an improvement in Labour's polling - while the Conservatives remained in the lead thanks to the afterglow of the Falklands War, the infighting in the centre served to draw attention away from Labour's own internal struggles and enabled the Foot leadership's campaign against rising unemployment to cut through. The subsequent by-elections in the 1979 to 1983 Parliament saw the Alliance fail to win any further seats, as well as seeing the Conservatives lose as much if not more of their polling percentage to Alliance candidates as Labour did.
The narrowing of polling across 1983 led Margaret Thatcher to take the decision to not hold a snap election that year as she had initially planned. This saw further Labour by-election victories, most notably Chesterfield where Eric Varley's resignation of his seat to become Chairman of Coalite plc, led to a Labour triumph and the Liberals remained in third, hopes of taking the seat slashed by the presence of the Radicals. The general election held that May was held in bitter economic conditions, the highest rate of unemployment since the Second World, and a grim industrial dispute with the NUM. It still came as something of a surprise however when the Conservatives lost their majority - mostly to Labour gain. The Alliance performed poorly, picking up only a handful of seats - the SDP was reduced to single figures, a mere addendum to the Liberals, who would formally absorb them the following year. The Radicals, bereft of an electoral pact, held no seats - serving only to prevent Alliance candidates from achieving victory. The Thatcher government would go on to form a minority government with Ulster Unionist confidence and supply, but would be eventually forced to seek terms with the miners thanks to the strength of parliamentary opposition.
From A Long Time In Politics, by Huey Richards (2003)
For a moment in the 70s and 80s it seemed as if the right of the Labour Party, frustrated at the increasing control of the left, would form a new centrist party, form a common cause with the Liberals and possibly One Nation Tories disquieted by Margaret Thatcher's brand of conservatism and realign British politics around itself. It began with the Lincoln Democratic Labour Party, formed by Dick Taverne as he faced deselection by his constituency party. He later founded the Campaign for Social Democracy, which aimed to decapitate leading left-wingers such as Tony Benn. The victory of the Labour Party in 1974 put an end to this attempts, but in 1975 Labour right-wingers formed the Social Democratic Association which was reputedly associated with figures such as Roy Jenkins and Reg Prentice.
In 1980, the SDA began to talk of standing candidates against official Labour candidates at the next general election and the group would eventually be expelled that year for such activities. In 1981 Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers - the so-called Gang of Four - left the Labour Party, launching the Council for Social Democracy. In March, it was renamed the Social Democratic Party, absorbing the Social Democratic Alliance.
Over the coming months, several Labour MPs (and one Conservative) would defect to the newborn SDP. It would not be long before the party began to suffer setbacks however. First was the test of the Crosby by-election in November, at which it was suggested Shirley Williams be put forward as their candidate. She refused, having no desire to return to the 'boy's club' of Westminster and hoping to build the Social Democratic movement outside Parliament. The Conservatives held Crosby, a disappointment for the SDP's first democratic test. Instead the laurels seemed to be heaped upon the Liberals, who had went from third place to outright victory at the Croydon North West by-election in June, thanks to the Alliance brokered between them and the SDP.
In February 1982 the party conference narrowly agreed with the steering committee that the formal election of the leader would be held amongst the parliamentary party alone. This would prove to be a fateful decision. The following month saw Roy Jenkins contest the Glasgow Hillhead by-election. The bitterness around the conference decision, most notably from David Owen in Parliament and Shirley Williams amongst the grassroots saw the erstwhile leader narrowly defeated by the Conservatives. Despite this, Jenkins still intended to stand for the leadership. More humiliating was the Mitcham and Morden by-election that June, as SDP MP Bruce Douglas-Mann resigned his seat and stood in the subsequent by-election. This was done without the leadership's go ahead, and Douglas-Mann received little financial support in his campaign. The result was an agonisingly slim Labour hold, which came as a surprise to the embattled Foot leadership, which had expected the Conservatives to win thanks to the progress of the Falklands War.
The leadership election in July 1982 saw Jenkins narrowly triumph over David Owen, but the party's travails had only just begun. The SDP's weakness as a brand seemed to confirm to Jenkins that the way forward was a full merger with the Liberals. Owen, who hoped to turn the SDP into a genuinely new political force of the centre, was horrified by this turn of events, as Jenkins sought a new deal with the Liberals which would integrate the Alliance to a far greater degree than previously proposed. It was at this point that the SDP split, Owen taking his followers out and into his own Radical Party - attempts to seek a simple electoral pact with the Liberals and SDP would be flatly rejected.
The infighting in the former Labour right and their subsequent crash in the polls, served to reflect well on Foot's leadership and with Denis Healey as Deputy, was able to convince those on the right who had not left that there was no path to electability for the centre-left outside the Labour Party. This was reflected in an improvement in Labour's polling - while the Conservatives remained in the lead thanks to the afterglow of the Falklands War, the infighting in the centre served to draw attention away from Labour's own internal struggles and enabled the Foot leadership's campaign against rising unemployment to cut through. The subsequent by-elections in the 1979 to 1983 Parliament saw the Alliance fail to win any further seats, as well as seeing the Conservatives lose as much if not more of their polling percentage to Alliance candidates as Labour did.
The narrowing of polling across 1983 led Margaret Thatcher to take the decision to not hold a snap election that year as she had initially planned. This saw further Labour by-election victories, most notably Chesterfield where Eric Varley's resignation of his seat to become Chairman of Coalite plc, led to a Labour triumph and the Liberals remained in third, hopes of taking the seat slashed by the presence of the Radicals. The general election held that May was held in bitter economic conditions, the highest rate of unemployment since the Second World, and a grim industrial dispute with the NUM. It still came as something of a surprise however when the Conservatives lost their majority - mostly to Labour gain. The Alliance performed poorly, picking up only a handful of seats - the SDP was reduced to single figures, a mere addendum to the Liberals, who would formally absorb them the following year. The Radicals, bereft of an electoral pact, held no seats - serving only to prevent Alliance candidates from achieving victory. The Thatcher government would go on to form a minority government with Ulster Unionist confidence and supply, but would be eventually forced to seek terms with the miners thanks to the strength of parliamentary opposition.
Elektronaut
Effectively Stood Down
- Location
- The Legendarium of Gentleman Julius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Given we know Alliance voters were pretty evenly divided, but probably favoured the Tories over Labour as their second preference, and I think Crewe and King show pretty clearly that SDP voters at least were much closer to the Tories in policy terms, I don't know why people are assuming the third party option faltering is a particular positive for Labour. I don't think the result at the next election changes hugely, and if anything it may benefit the Tories.
- Location
- Colwyn Bay/Manchester
- Pronouns
- He/him
Gateway drug?Given we know Alliance voters were pretty evenly divided, but probably favoured the Tories over Labour as their second preference, and I think Crewe and King show pretty clearly that SDP voters at least were much closer to the Tories in policy terms, I don't know why people are assuming the third party option faltering is a particular positive for Labour. I don't think the result at the next election changes hugely, and if anything it may benefit the Tories.
Maybe the Gang of Three does not join up with the Jenkinsites, the SDP is dominated by Owen and declines co-operation with the Liberals, whilst Jenkins also launches the more avowedly centrist party that he had been planning, and immediately opts for an alliance with the Liberals. Such a situation would look like a total clusterfuck, and the Liberal-Centre group would probably establish themselves as the dominant of the two groups after a few good by-election results.
With regards to improving ChUK, I think they could have done a lot better had they held off launching until after the Euros. The timing of their split was probably the greatest of their many mistakes imo. It allowed the Lib Dems and Greens to build up momentum at the locals, which allowed them to become the choice for frustrated remainers at the Euros, leaving ChUK in a very weak position.
I know that a big factor in them announcing when they did was Berger was due to go on maternity leave soon after. Perhaps they decide to wait until after she comes back. Defecting around now would put them in a position of considerable strength, as it would come after a major defeat for Labour, and add more to the narrative of a collapsing party.
The Lib Dems success in a lot of Labour remain areas would also do more to convince more potential defectors to join. Of course, they were probably always going to need some sort of alliance with the Lib Dems if they want to succeed, but their taking 20% at the Euros would do a lot to make ChUK realise that was the case, and they could agree an equal partnership from the get go. Looking at where we are now, ChUK-Lib Dems would probably be topping the polls ITTL, and eating up even more of Labour's vote.
With regards to improving ChUK, I think they could have done a lot better had they held off launching until after the Euros. The timing of their split was probably the greatest of their many mistakes imo. It allowed the Lib Dems and Greens to build up momentum at the locals, which allowed them to become the choice for frustrated remainers at the Euros, leaving ChUK in a very weak position.
I know that a big factor in them announcing when they did was Berger was due to go on maternity leave soon after. Perhaps they decide to wait until after she comes back. Defecting around now would put them in a position of considerable strength, as it would come after a major defeat for Labour, and add more to the narrative of a collapsing party.
The Lib Dems success in a lot of Labour remain areas would also do more to convince more potential defectors to join. Of course, they were probably always going to need some sort of alliance with the Lib Dems if they want to succeed, but their taking 20% at the Euros would do a lot to make ChUK realise that was the case, and they could agree an equal partnership from the get go. Looking at where we are now, ChUK-Lib Dems would probably be topping the polls ITTL, and eating up even more of Labour's vote.
The difficulty is that she, like a lot of other people on the Labour right, isn't really in favour of a second referendum, so she was never a realistic recruit for ChUK. It could well be that Brexit actually made the mainstream Labour breakaway a lot smaller than it could have been.Cooper has been a bit of a hero to FBPE in a way that Umunna hasn't, thanks to Actually Doing Parliamentary Things to try to stop Brexit. She'd have been a coup.
Ed Miliband at least has a higher profile than Cooper. I'd say Diane Abbott too based on my experience.ISTR Cooper being the most well known current Labour MP after Corbyn.
Last edited:
Elektronaut
Effectively Stood Down
- Location
- The Legendarium of Gentleman Julius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Eh. Surely them trying to do OTL but after the Lib Dem successes would just look like a more monstrous act of egotism than OTL. You think the Lib Dems would feel the need to treat them as equal partners after those results? Man, good luck with that.
They had two realistic options to my mind, get over their egos and tribalism and contempt for the Lib Dems and outright defect, or just not bother with trying to frame it in party terms and just sit as an independent Labour group. The first would have meant the causes they champion, and not to say their careers, would have had much more lead in the pencil than OTL. The second would have spared them the embarrassment of the last few months and would have equally lead to them having more credibility, if only in that case in terms of the internal optics of Labour.
It's hardly hindsight, me and a lot of other internet randomers said at the time that they were attempting a six sixes thing with what they did in terms of setting up a third party nobody was asking for. I don't think the timing had much to do with it, but if it did, I think they left it too late, not too early.
They had two realistic options to my mind, get over their egos and tribalism and contempt for the Lib Dems and outright defect, or just not bother with trying to frame it in party terms and just sit as an independent Labour group. The first would have meant the causes they champion, and not to say their careers, would have had much more lead in the pencil than OTL. The second would have spared them the embarrassment of the last few months and would have equally lead to them having more credibility, if only in that case in terms of the internal optics of Labour.
It's hardly hindsight, me and a lot of other internet randomers said at the time that they were attempting a six sixes thing with what they did in terms of setting up a third party nobody was asking for. I don't think the timing had much to do with it, but if it did, I think they left it too late, not too early.
Yes, they would look more opportunistic, but they would also have the advantages that they had at the beginning of their existence, before they began to slide, and probably would be in an even stronger position with more MPs to bring to the table. If you're the Lib Dems, an alliance with ChUK makes perfect sense at that point, especially if you're objective is to keep up the momentum from the Euros and attract more Labour voters to your side so that you push yourselves into the lead in what is an extremely fragmented political environment.Eh. Surely them trying to do OTL but after the Lib Dem successes would just look like a more monstrous act of egotism than OTL. You think the Lib Dems would feel the need to treat them as equal partners after those results? Man, good luck with that.
The Lib Dems indicated they were theoretically open to an electoral alliance, so it would have been relatively easy to achieve that had they pushed for one. The only thing which was off limits for the LDs was merging into a new party and losing their own identity.They had two realistic options to my mind, get over their egos and tribalism and contempt for the Lib Dems and outright defect, or just not bother with trying to frame it in party terms and just sit as an independent Labour group. The first would have meant the causes they champion, and not to say their careers, would have had much more lead in the pencil than OTL. The second would have spared them the embarrassment of the last few months and would have equally lead to them having more credibility, if only in that case in terms of the internal optics of Labour.
- Location
- Municipal Commune of Bourne
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Given we know Alliance voters were pretty evenly divided, but probably favoured the Tories over Labour as their second preference, and I think Crewe and King show pretty clearly that SDP voters at least were much closer to the Tories in policy terms, I don't know why people are assuming the third party option faltering is a particular positive for Labour. I don't think the result at the next election changes hugely, and if anything it may benefit the Tories.
The success of the Alliance in by-elections led to them soaring in the polls, fuelling speculation over every perceived conflict between the left and right wings of the Labour Party, and whether this meant another slew of defections. ITTL, with the SDP tripping over its laces, focus is more on the centrist's failure - and I imagine Labour is able to retain something of its polling position prior to the Crosby by-election, when it was generally beating the Tories. I accounted for the Falklands, by saying the Tories still emerged the largest party, you'll notice.
- Location
- Toronto, ON, CA
"No Falklands" meaning the Tories are going to go significantly backwards is a big if, with or without the SDP being a laughing stock.The success of the Alliance in by-elections led to them soaring in the polls, fuelling speculation over every perceived conflict between the left and right wings of the Labour Party, and whether this meant another slew of defections. ITTL, with the SDP tripping over its laces, focus is more on the centrist's failure - and I imagine Labour is able to retain something of its polling position prior to the Crosby by-election, when it was generally beating the Tories. I accounted for the Falklands, by saying the Tories still emerged the largest party, you'll notice.
Elektronaut
Effectively Stood Down
- Location
- The Legendarium of Gentleman Julius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The success of the Alliance in by-elections led to them soaring in the polls, fuelling speculation over every perceived conflict between the left and right wings of the Labour Party, and whether this meant another slew of defections. ITTL, with the SDP tripping over its laces, focus is more on the centrist's failure - and I imagine Labour is able to retain something of its polling position prior to the Crosby by-election, when it was generally beating the Tories. I accounted for the Falklands, by saying the Tories still emerged the largest party, you'll notice.
I'm doubtful how reliable the mid-term polling is as a clear predictor of a general election result, particularly when it comes to Labour. Labour lead for a lot of the 1983-87 parliament too, and the 1987-1992 parliament come to that. There's more recent examples as well with both parties, both in terms of basic leads and margins. Ed Milliband and Cameron under Brown both cruised their parliaments based on the polls and ended up getting burned when the eventual results come in. There's clearly a big element of people noting their dissatisfaction in mid-term polling which doesn't have any particular bearing on how they'll vote when they actually come to the focusing of minds in the run-up to a general election. Which is why I am not massively swayed by the national polling at the moment.
Equally the assumption that Labour's divisions were only accentuated with the arrival of the SDP seems a little odd. There was a long and particularly bitter pre-history on that one. And the Falklands is generally over-stated in these discussions.
Ultimately I think the demographic base of the SDP vote was part of a global western phenomenon. Boomers coming of voting age, essentially. SDP voters were the exact same type which formed the bedrock of the Gary Hart boomlet in 84, for example. I don't think these people were ever at risk of enthusiastically voting for Socialism red in tooth and claw, as they'd prove very emphatically over the next few decades. If the SDP collapses under Owenite madness, at best for Labour they're going to be pretty evenly divided between the two main parties, which is what we have on their OTL second preferences; depending on where it's located, this may benefit the Tories overall. Given Mrs T's margin over Labour IOTL was a paltry 15%, presumably for a hung parliament we are looking at dominant numbers of these voters and some people who voted Conservative IOTL thinking 'Labour under Foot - Labour under Foot during a general election campaign at that! - aint half bad', and I am seriously struggling to see that.
Last edited:
- Location
- Municipal Commune of Bourne
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm doubtful how reliable the mid-term polling is as a clear predictor of a general election result, particularly when it comes to Labour. Labour lead for a lot of the 1983-87 parliament too, and the 1987-1992 parliament come to that. There's more recent examples as well with both parties, both in terms of basic leads and margins. Ed Milliband and Cameron under Brown both cruised their parliaments based on the polls and ended up getting burned when the eventual results come in. There's clearly a big element of people noting their dissatisfaction in mid-term polling which doesn't have any particular bearing on how they'll vote when they actually come to the focusing of minds in the run-up to a general election. Which is why I am not massively swayed by the national polling at the moment.
Equally the assumption that Labour's divisions were only accentuated with the arrival of the SDP seems a little odd. There was a long and particularly bitter pre-history on that one. And the Falklands is generally over-stated in these discussions.
Ultimately I think the demographic base of the SDP vote was part of a global western phenomenon. Boomers coming of voting age, essentially. SDP voters were the exact same type which formed the bedrock of the Gary Hart boomlet in 84, for example. I don't think these people were ever at risk of enthusiastically voting for Socialism red in tooth and claw, as they'd prove very emphatically over the next few decades. If the SDP collapses under Owenite madness, at best for Labour they're going to be pretty evenly divided between the two main parties, which is what we have on their OTL second preferences; depending on where it's located, this may benefit the Tories overall. Given Mrs T's margin over Labour IOTL was a paltry 15%, presumably for a hung parliament we are looking at dominant numbers of these voters and some people who voted Conservative IOTL thinking 'Labour under Foot - Labour under Foot during a general election campaign at that! - aint half bad', and I am seriously struggling to see that.
I also dragged things out to 1984, when you know - highest levels of unemployment since WW2 and all that, might make some people think 'maybe she doesnt know what shes doing'.
Elektronaut
Effectively Stood Down
- Location
- The Legendarium of Gentleman Julius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I also dragged things out to 1984, when you know - highest levels of unemployment since WW2 and all that, might make some people think 'maybe she doesnt know what shes doing'.
The unemployment rate in '84 was pretty comparable to '83 though, same for inflation. The big rocketing up of unemployment had already happened by that point, that's an 79-82 process. Growth dipped a bit but don't really sense delaying the election for a year means any big difference.
How to solve the problem of the Lib Dems and Greens, I've no idea.
This is the insurmountable problem for How Can TIG Do Well: they were assuming the Lib Dems were beaten but their first big electoral thing would be after the council elections. Any good showing by the Lib Dems there buggers the TIGs; if the TIGs rush into the council elections they'll do badly, which buggers the TIGs; and if the Lib Dems do badly but that leads to Labour doing okay, that buggers the TIGs.
I don't see a way around this other than the TIGs splitting earlier - which would link up nicely with your "more from Berger" theory* - and I'm not sure if they would. Maybe if they did, and they could play the media game better and get some bigger names, then going into the council elections they could be the same pressure on the Lib Dems that the Lib Dems were on them in the MEPs. It wouldn't do the same damage but if enough voters go to the TIG councillors, if enough Lib Dems publicly break ranks, if enough fear and confusion seems to within the LDs, then even a bit of damage is easy to puff up as "WHAT TIGs DO BEST". But then you also need a Lib Dem/TIG pact for the MEPs to stop the narrative changing when the same voters are split between the two and it means less seats, and getting all of this done in the same timeline.....
(Also they shouldn't call themselves Change because that sounds stupid.)
* And I know Berger cut through to disgruntled Labour better than the others because I personally saw a friend getting surprised when one of his friends, who was Jewish, snapped back at his TIG dissing because it included Berger. And that was the one MP in the group she wasn't dismissive of.
Juan Vogel
Well-known member
Timing doesn't work well for TiG - nominations would close first week or two in April and they were barely getting themselves into shape then. Do you know how hard it is to go through the nomination process in council elections, especially when you don't really know what you are doing (I do!). Then imagine doing that for dozens of boroughs and, also, finding hundreds at least candidates.