No 1988 Benn-Heffer Leadership Challenge?

[Time Enough]

So what if (somehow) in 1988, Tony Benn and Eric Heffer decide to not challenge Kinnock-Hattersley in the 1988 leadership election? In some ways this would help out the Hard Left in the long run as Benn-Heffer's failure managed to help burn out the slow voting in of Hard Left candidates to the NEC. It would also help out John Prescott who was wounded by Benn and Heffer's failure to win over the Trade Unions as many in the party saw it as being embarrassing and therefore showcased the Left's inability to win ground.

What else could be the effects of this?

 

[BenoitBonMarch]

The question is, why would they (or any other anti-Kinnock) left challenger not emerge by this stage? Even going beyond the Tribune/Campaign Group/later Bevanite boundaries in Labour's leftwing, 1988/9 were considered cruicial turning points for the general turn of the Party going into the Nineties. Kinnock was successfully purging Militant and he was moving away from the old tokens of public ownership and unilateralism with a renewed emphasis on social justice.

The Policy Review was underway and seen (not without some good reason) by many outside of the left as well as within as a way of accomodating and conceding to the economic changes of monetarism but challenging the Conservatives on social issues. The Kinnock defence is that old-school Keynesianism won't cut the mustard anymore, unless your name is Bryan Gould.

But I do imagine some confrontation within the Left would take place at some point, especially over something as fundamental as unilateralism. Perhaps an earlier end to the Cold War allows Kinnock to quietly abandon it; or further down the line, a post-Thatcher Labour government finds a stronger leftwing present, without the split in the Campaign Group that meant people like Beckett, Hewitt, and the like abandoned Bennism and moved to the mainstream.

 

[Time Enough]

The question is, why would they (or any other anti-Kinnock) left challenger not emerge by this stage? Even going beyond the Tribune/Campaign Group/later Bevanite boundaries in Labour's leftwing, 1988/9 were considered cruicial turning points for the general turn of the Party going into the Nineties. Kinnock was successfully purging Militant and he was moving away from the old tokens of public ownership and unilateralism with a renewed emphasis on social justice.

I think if we see any well balanced Left Wing challenge it would probably be a Soft Left member kneecapping Hattersley. Kinnock still held some respect in the Soft Left and some of the Left bregrudingly supported him but both seemed to believe Hattersley had driven him astray etc and the idea was that ridding Hattersley would showcase the criticism to Kinncok that they had with the project. So it wouldn’t surprise me if an Alternate 1988/1989 is just Hattersley being ousted in a Deputy Leadership Election (the only reason he didn’t lose narrowly to John Prescott was due to Union shenanigans and Benn/Heffer’s attempt weighing down Prescotts more concentrated effort).

The Kinnock defence is that old-school Keynesianism won't cut the mustard anymore, unless your name is Bryan Gould.

Gould wasn’t and never will be a cut and dry Keynesian. He was more of a grab bag of every economic idea he could lay his hands on and compiled into a Socialist Mush.

But I do imagine some confrontation within the Left would take place at some point, especially over something as fundamental as unilateralism. Perhaps an earlier end to the Cold War allows Kinnock to quietly abandon it; or further down the line, a post-Thatcher Labour government finds a stronger leftwing present, without the split in the Campaign Group that meant people like Beckett, Hewitt, and the like abandoned Bennism and moved to the mainstream.

I could see Beckett leaving the Campaign Group eventually but having her stay longer would probably mean she avoids the drive headlong into being John Smith’s No2. But no Benn/Heffer attempt would probably mean a stronger Left of the Party if anything.

 

[Venocara]

Gould wasn’t and never will be a cut and dry Keynesian. He was more of a grab bag of every economic idea he could lay his hands on and compiled into a Socialist Mush.

Rather opportunistically I would like to ask, what exactly was Bryan Gould? What kind of a politician was he? What did he believe in?

 

[BenoitBonMarch]

Rather opportunistically I would like to ask, what exactly was Bryan Gould? What kind of a politician was he? What did he believe in?

I echo this question. From the (admittedly) brief exposure I've had of him I pegged him down as a Keynesian whose intellectual rigour suggested an assertive adherence to such ideas.

I think if we see any well balanced Left Wing challenge it would probably be a Soft Left member kneecapping Hattersley. ~ ~ But no Benn/Heffer attempt would probably mean a stronger Left of the Party if anything.

Perhaps all that 1988/9 ends up with is Prescott as Deputy Leader to nudge Kinnock to the left, better placed to succeed him, or Smith, indeed, health dependent, as he becomes the conscience of the party, or to the external commentators, yet another sign of Labour infighting.

A stronger left would also elevate individuals of a more pragmatic streak - Mullin, Meacher, Peter Hain, perhaps even Ken Livingstone. The successful assertion of the Left depends on Kinnock and Prescott's working relationship, going back to the above point - help or hindrance?

 

[Time Enough]

Rather opportunistically I would like to ask, what exactly was Bryan Gould? What kind of a politician was he? What did he believe in?

Bryan Gould is a lot of things, and still think my boyfriend description suits him best; He was a Witty Nightmare.

What kind of politician; Smug Intellectual Type if anything. Now this had a habit of rubbing much of the Shadow Cabinet up the wrong way. As for what he believed, well originally he was true Peter Shore fan and pretty much followed his beck and call until about 1978 when he starts battling Denis Healey over Monetarism.

After that Gould goes down a rabbit hole of trying to make Socialism viable for the Thatcherite Age, his thesis seems to lean strongly towards Market Socialism, Government spending, a more Democratic Economy and Decentralisation. Much of Economics ideas are combination of Keynesian ideas, Supply Side ideas mixed with a healthy dash of Democratic/Market Socialism. Now he seems to recommend essentially recommend Social Credit in the 2010s so...

 

[Time Enough]

The successful assertion of the Left depends on Kinnock and Prescott's working relationship, going back to the above point - help or hindrance?

There’s a strong chance that Kinnock may fuck off. He had numerous bouts of depression and if Hattersley lost he essentially planned to resign. Which means you get a leadership election in 1989 which opens the playing field a bit.

A stronger left would also elevate individuals of a more pragmatic streak - Mullin, Meacher, Peter Hain, perhaps even Ken Livingstone.

Meacher definitely would rise quicker, especially if Peter Mandelson isn’t able to consolidate power to the same degree as Otl.

 

[Juan Vogel]

Bryan Gould is a lot of things, and still think my boyfriend description suits him best; He was a Witty Nightmare.

What kind of politician; Smug Intellectual Type if anything. Now this had a habit of rubbing much of the Shadow Cabinet up the wrong way. As for what he believed, well originally he was true Peter Shore fan and pretty much followed his beck and call until about 1978 when he starts battling Denis Healey over Monetarism.

After that Gould goes down a rabbit hole of trying to make Socialism viable for the Thatcherite Age, his thesis seems to lean strongly towards Market Socialism, Government spending, a more Democratic Economy and Decentralisation. Much of Economics ideas are combination of Keynesian ideas, Supply Side ideas mixed with a healthy dash of Democratic/Market Socialism. Now he seems to recommend essentially recommend Social Credit in the 2010s so...

Sounds like a typical North Islander.

 

[Time Enough]

Sounds like a typical North Islander.

Indeed, also just remembered that 1988-1989 is probably the best time for Gould to contest the leadership. Though it’s a good time for John Smith too.

Both scenarios are good for the Soft Left, Gould being a Soft Leftie in the drivers seat probably helps the Left, whilst John Smith has a ‘Liberal’ regime when it came to the Left unlike Kinnock (which probably pisses off the Mandelson lot).